Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Sues to Stop Privacy Rules; Wants to Sell Call Data
Jake writes "Verizon has asked a federal court to stop state regulators from enforcing new privacy rules that would prohibit telephone companies from using or sharing details about customers' calling habits without permission. Verizon, which serves nearly 1 million customers across Washington state, had plans to begin a data-sharing system that allowed the company and its affiliates to collect information on when, where and how often customers make telephone calls. It would use that data to sell new products and services to customers." "We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information," Verizon's PR person says. Great.
After seeing a previous article posted on Slashdot about Australia having a higher rating of phone taps than the US, and not to forget the recent fiasco with Telstra tapping certain phones...this is music to ones ears.
I really really want to sell private information about others
:)
Can't I PUH-LEASE Daddy
Verizon is watching...
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Why wouldn't Verizon have a right to sell information about what people do in their homes? (/sarcasm)
I went to college for this?...
That's pretty bad, what we can do as a consumer. Verizon is the only service provider here. There is no choice.
Yeah they have rights as a corporation, but what about my rights as a US citizen?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Only if they will sell the data to telemarketers. And then sell me telemarketing blocking services. Then sell the telemarketers blocking work arounds. That would be cool. Oh wait, they already do that!
TO start following some of these yahoos around with a camera, and report their every move. See how they like it.
1:00 had lunch
2:15 in bathroom for 15 minutes.
2:30 goofed off
3:00 met girlfrined for lunch
4:15 called wife to say he was going to be late.
4:45 left office
6:00 went to girlfreind, see attached picture with her street address and bra size.
6:15- 8:35 freaky circus sex, see film from clandestine video hidden in tree.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
i don't think they will see any success in this case !! they will eventually realise that after wasting millions.... anyway good luck verizzzzzon,.
How is this free speech?
/. article, but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...
Free license to make a buck, more like...
I know this comes up after every goddamn
"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"
Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.
Best Windows Freeware
It's Verizon ferchrissakes, what do you expect?
...or call customer service... ...or talk with my "sales rep"
Has *ANYONE* ever had a good experience with them?
I cringe everytime they walk in the door and head for the demarc closet...
These guys have stupidity down to a fine science...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
Welcome to the information age. The question is no longer whether you are being served, but to whom.
I hate Klerck, aka Kevin Ealy who resides at 14 Stanhope Road in Goose Creek, SC.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Hey, at least AT&T won't be able to call me every hour on the hour asking me to "switch" anymore...
People who live in Washington (like I used to) should let their friends and loved ones know what verizon is trying to do. News like this hardly even gets reported, and if those of us who realize what a threat this is to privacy actually took five minutes to let our friends know, then maybe we could actually show companies what happens when they decide to treat their customers like commodities that can be used up and thrown aside.
Just one man's rant.
They'd still be breaking the law, but they're asking to not get in trouble for it. What balls!
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.
By using their service you negate your privacy rights.
The fact that the federal court is forcing them not to is a legal argument within it's own rights.
Thank God here in Canada we're using Bell Canada who cares about our rights.......wait a minute...
Yo Grark
- Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information..."
Yep, they do have rights. For example, they have the right to remain silent.
"Derp de derp."
(posting from Poulsbo, WA)
I can't take sides on this. I know I'll be marked as a troll. But the second we start saying you can't give such and such information out as a law rather than a contract clause, we're impeding the freedom of information. However, I value my privacy as much as most people here (hell, I use PGP with huge keys for my real emails). But Freedom of Information, or privacy. they don't have to be mutually exclusive, but we've got to be careful when we try to restrict others, otherwise it may come back and bite us in the ass.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
And some lucky people in Texas like me!
On the contrary, Verizon's a major provider of both landline and cellular service in the Seattle area.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Well, then I have no problem telling Verizon to GET THE FUCK OFF MY PHONE. Then again, I don't have to deal with Verizon, because I think they're a bunch of tools, so I don't do business with them.
Of course, you've got Joe Sixpack who doesn't know why his telemarketing calls are about to increase - oh, well.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Can you hear me now? Good! Now GO TO HELL!
Duffman can never die! Only the actors who play him!
I was very happy with Verizon figting with FBI about its customer privacy. Not happy at all now. Looks like Verizon only value customer privacy until they have a chance to make money from violating it.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
As a customer of Verizon Northwest (nee General Telephone) in North Idaho, I can attest that these scumbags have customers in the West.
I no longer have Verizon cellular service as a result of their business practices, but for normal phone service, they are the only game in town.
Mike in North Idaho
Huh. That must be why I read it on the front page of the Seattle PI today. Oh no, wait -- that doesn't make sense?
I'm sure your right about Verizon's origins, but need I add another "read the article" comment? But then again, if everyone who wrote "read the article" actually read the article, no one hear would have anything to talk about.
Whatever. Beep beep beep beep.
-- Hobbits suck!
"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"
RTFC
All they need is a recording that plays everytime you pick up your phone...
"Press the * key to acknowledge acceptance of the EULA in operating this phone..."
It strikes me as humorous and, at the same time, annoying that large corporations feel the need to take money from their customers, and then turn around and take money from other corporations, violating the privacy of their customers.
Case in point: Albertsons. Two years ago, they ran an add campaign about how they had low prices (which they do not) and that you didn't need to bring an annoying card in to get their low, low prices.
A few months ago, ALbertsons began giving away free discount cards that track your purchases. If you don't use the card, you pay 30% more for many items. You must be from the same household to use the same card.
I stopped shopping at Albertsons.
If you want to send a message to Verizon, switch to AT&T, T-Mobile, or whatever other cell service is available.
Witholding cash is the best protest.
Uh.... I live in Washington state and happen to be a Verizon customer. They have a fairly humongus presence here. Maybe you should consider getting your facts straight about getting your facts straight?
This is the same stuff, in more serious package:
Finnish police arrest Sonera telecom executives in privacy investigation
Two high-ranking executives at Sonera Corp., Finland's main telecommunications company, were arrested Friday in an investigation into whether the company violated the privacy of its workers.
The employees are Jari Jaakkola, an executive vice-president, and Henri Harmia, who was in charge of co-ordinating Sonera's $6.2-billion merger with the Swedish company Telia. Both have been suspended from the company. The charges of violating Finland's data-security laws come just weeks after police began holding three other Sonera employees who worked with corporate security. Police are investigating whether Sonera monitored the call records of its own employees in 2000 and 2001.
Wow, you must feel stupid for making that post.
You are partly incorrect: GTE served the Everett, WA area, and this is probably the affected area here. I wonder if this also pertains to VZ Wireless.
BTW, VZ is asking here to be able to use the data to sell its own services, not to sell to 3rd parties. Not great, maybe, but not as bad as it could be.
Disclosure: I work for VZ, but not for anything connected to wireline at all (I work for International Security). That said, I don't speak for the company, and they certainly don't speak for me. It's a paycheck.
It's not like they are recording the content of your calls, they just want to know where, when, and how often you make your calls.
It's called "Demographics"
Maybe you have heard of it. Ohh wait, this is slashdot. The internet's collection of knee-jerk criticisms.
Ze Germans, I love ze Germans, zey maken zuch good beer...
Verizon is an offspring of Bell telephone, broken up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bell was broken up for being a monopoly and unfairly influencing the market to drive up prices without improving service. If Verizon is trying to sell personal data, and people still don't have any real choices in phone companies, then the breakup of Bell was unsuccessful, and the hazardous monopoly still exists between Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and Bell South, all of which are virtual regional monopolies and compaines formed from the breakup of Bell Telephone.
More Information can be found at Voices For Choices
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
At the best, they'll do like most companies and say that you have to "opt-out" every year to keep your information from being sold.
Think about it though. Even if you're sitting at your computer at the right time logged in and ready to click the button at the exact second you have to opt-out, they could a nano-second before you click zip your personal information to a third party.
Not to mention if they say, "Well, we'll send you a letter first to say you have the option to opt-out, but you'll be optted-in as soon as you recieve the letter giving them several days to pass your information along for money." Why else would they have us opt-out instead of in?Seriously, you can answer that question. I'm an openminded person.
We live in an IT dominated world now.
Information is $$$$$
Before slashdot's collective knee jerks, why is this such a bad thing?
As long as my name isn't attached, I would assume this is the sort of thing needed to improve service.
Most sigs are dumb. This is one of them.
what's to stop them from using software to analyze what the customers talk about and to use that information in marketing?
I am certainly NAL, but doesn't the government need a warrant to obtain this kind of info, just like a wiretap? Yet Verizon feels they have a right to it?
They really do, I've seen them.
AT&T broadband also digests fecal matter in large quantities, but I guess they haven't come out and said it on a webpage like verizon has yet.
ôó
And it doesn't affect the areas you list, as it is a state law being challenged. Washington state.
If you're going to be arrogant, at least be right.
Brevity is the soul of wit
-- Polonius
9:00 Sell pictures
9:30 ????
10:00 Profit!!!
Oh don't give me that look. You all were thinking the same thing.
Just as I did with MCI today, leave them and vote with you $$'s. MCI raised rates to attempt to recover some of the billions lost due to the WorldCom fiasco. Well and good for MCI it is their right to do so, but it is also my right as a consumer to choose not to be a victim. Tell Verizon how you feel in the ONLY manner which has ANY effect, with your $$'s. When you transfer make sure to tell them it is in direct response to their decision to attempt to market personal information without regard to my desires. I am kind of curious how a large corporation would view this item, anyone in the telecom area of a fortune 500 company out there ????
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Maybe I haven't actually "read" the constitution, but I think most would agree that the right to share personal and private information about others for profit is one of our most basic and inalienable. Its about time someone had the courage to stand up to these draconian privacy laws.
Jeez! This is not some extreme set of rules - this is barely within what I'd call reasonable rights for the consumers. They can't share call details without permission? They have to let people opt out? Come on now, the details of who you call is private information. By what right does Verizon or any company get to share this very personal information without permission? And on top of that they're fighting to keep people from being able to opt out? In my mind, this sort of thing should be purely opt in - and I mean really opt in - not the type where the option is already selected for you unless you find it and deselect it.
OK, OK, I'm ranting. This kind of shit pisses me off. Sorry about that.
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Yes, Verizon does have a local presence in other states now, as do all the Baby Bells. This is due to the Telco Reform Act of 1996 (or was it 1997?). They also have a heavy wireless presence across the US.
*However*, Verizon always has, and will continue to be a East Coast focused company until they can gobble up another Baby Bell.
It costs an average of $1200-$1500 per household to lay down local loop. The lines your DSL service is coming in on, if you use Verizon outside the Verizon home territory, are leased from the Baby Bell in your area because it is too expensive to lay down new infrastructure.
The US is basically down to four (from the original seven after the AT&T divestiture) Baby Bells now: BellSouth, Verizon, SBC and Qwest. Qwest is about to fold.
So, the US getting back into an oligopoly as far at the telco industry is concerned, perhaps even a duopoly.
This is the failure of the Telco Reform Act that you read about in the papers.
... about Bell Canada. Nothing like being "the guy" in the local markets. OTOH, Deregulation of Hydro on Ontario has done such a good job....
Half the problem is the whole issue of competition. If I make two companies compete, both will look for every way they can to compete and make money, including abusing their customer base data. And of course, if every company does it, there isn't a choice. Until someone demonstrates that people are willing to pay extra $$$ for NOT selling this info, then their will be a financial (and therefore competitive) advantage to doing so.
But are consumers that smart? They talk a mean game but most of us look for the cheapest rates and live with the side effects. Sad.... but true.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
"But this is infringing on our rights of corporate free speech", whines Verizon. Free speech? Possible first amendment violation? Come on, why the hell did we sell this country to the highest bidder? How the heck can a CORPORATION have rights to do anything other than exist for the good of the consumers it serves.
I don't know if I'm going to have the stomach to live in this country in 10 years if things continue to progress in the way that it looks like they are.
All Verizon has to do to get the public behind them is offer a few cents off phone service or something and most sheep will gladly let Verizon target marketing to them based on how often they called their girlfriend.
Organize, resist, refuse! I paid $14 the other day for an item at Safeway that would have cost me $5 if they could have tracked it. Hopefully, I'll be able to continue to afford the fight.
Tell your friends about this if you live in WA state, write your reps, write your newspaper editor, if it passes, CANCEL your verizon service.
Sadly, it all seems futile, but I'm reminded of a Gandhi quote which I'm going to probably slightly misquote: "Whatever it is that you do will be insignificant, however it is extremely important that you do it."
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Here 8=m===D Is my Private 8===m=D Phone Data 8=m===D Post! 8===m=D 8=m===D 8===m=D ~ ~ ~ ( o )( o )MOMMY ca nhear me now from her FAT Vagina! Brought to you by what I like to call the Friday Burn. Karma Means Nothing.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
I will fully support the argument that Verizon has a right to use information to sustain their corporation. However, the rights of the individual must outweigh their right to profit.
Any company that has plans to survive needs data about their own market. I would fully expect any phone company to maintain data pertaining to call usage and frequency. Important decisions are based on this sort of thing, like "Does our infrastructure for handling Australia calls need upgrading"? However, you only need aggregate data for this sort of thing. As soon as you start invading other people's privacy by profiling and selling data to third-party companies so that they can solicit you, something is going wrong.
My time is much more valuable to me than who provides my services. It's time that all corporations, not just phone companies, started to wise up and see this. I suppose that's just wishful thinking, but if they choose to de-value my time, I choose to de-value their corporation, and they shan't receive any coin from me.
I moderate "-1, Fool"
I recently got a letter from Verizon telling me to call them to opt out if you didn't want them to make sales pitches to you. I called, and at the end of the call, he tried to sell me additional services (to help me avoid unwanted sales pitches).
Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The next thing I gathered is that they want to resell call detail records. Cool. Maybe they can sell direct to the public, it would only be fair, after all, we, the public with purchasing power have the should have right to buy it just like other corporations can :). Besides, it might be fun to have billg's call details and see who he's called to shake down or offer money to not use linux.
There is other options. One is to "opt out" by opting into cell phones only and a mass service boycott would be ammusing to see, however unlikely it is to actually happen :). The second option is for the PUC to show some balls and exercise it's option to terminate their franchise. This actually once almost happened out here in Virginia, when GTE, with their oversold and blocking central office would during the daytime fail to deliver even dialtone on a reliable basis. This was particularly bad during some incidents that involved people trying to reach emergency services and hospitals. Unfortunately, what happened, was that they merged into Bell Atlantic/Verizon before we could get rid of them. Hence, the company with the worst level of service merged with the company with the lowest quality of service to create a brand new low in telecommunications for our state!
See my other post in this thread. You don't understand how the telco industry operates. I used to be in it, OK?
Of course, that would mean the company would be working with you, instead of getting away with whatever they can. Maybe brand loyalty just doesn't mean anything to corperations now.
About a month ago, I switched from DSL to Cable, got a cell phone (cheaper than landline, long distance included), ...
AND DROPPED VERIZON FROM MY LIFE!
Yes folks, I excercised my power as a consumer, and I'm happy about that.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
"Can you hear me now?....GOOD!"
Why is it the phone company never sends out a mass-mailing saying "Hey, everyone! We've got a great new way to give you targetted service that you'll really love! Just tell us it's OK for us to give your number to some select companies, and you'll receive lots of interesting offers!"
I know you think I'm kidding, but I'm serious. Why is it always "tell us if you *don't* want us to do this, not "tell us if you want this". By that logic, I should be able to shoot in the head anyone who does not "opt-out" of me shooting them in the head.
This sounds suspiciously like "We have a constitutional right to make money." I don't know about you, but that argument always scares me more than angers me, because so many people believe it to be true.
-----
This brought to you by the government that remembered to give them a payraise that triples the average national income, but forgot to ensure that 1 MILLION people didn't starve over christmas because their unemployment benefits ran out. Thanks, Uncle George!
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Is this the same Verizon that's fighting for the privacy rights of its DSL users?
I swear, modern corporations have some kind of severe split-personality disorder.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
What's a bigger question here is:
What's the data used for? What marketing information can be gained from this... perhaps peak calling times on cell phones? Anyone know?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Bush is a Moron.
Not exactly breaking news...
Look at Michael Moore's site for more info on the removal of USA's civil rights with a sense of humour.
Or better, try reading Why Orwell Matters for a discussion on the need for constant understanding and evaluation of a gov't and its policies.
Okay, here's what I don't get. The new Homeland Security Bill just passed, which authorizes the government to construct a huge database that contains not just info about your calling patterns, but also about what websites you view, what books you read, everything you buy with your credit card, etc etc etc. Now, Verizon wants to use info about your calling patterns so they can offer you long distance savings, and you guys are reaching for your pitchforks. The government wants to use this info to decide whether or not to kick your door down, haul you off to an undiscolsed location, declare you an "enemy combatant" and thereby deny you any due process rights, like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber." Hey, no big deal, don't get excited about that, now. We got bigger fish to fry, right? Damn telemarketers.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It's like when I go out to a resteraunt and order an entree. The waitress should offer a suggestion as to which wine and dessert goes best with my meal. I sure have no clue as to which culinary delights work best together.
In the same way Verizon should be able to use sales records, and other data to create new services and products and offer them to me. Perhaps I make a lot of long distance calls, but only in the evening after 9pm. Then they should call up and offer me a plan that takes advantage of that. Or maybe I make a lot of long distance calls during the day, and they have a flat-rate plan that gives me 500 minutes of long distance a month. They should call and offer me that.
I don't have the time to check out every possible scenerio available with every company out there. It's their job to take the data they have and then present me with their best offers.
Maybe I'll say no. In fact, I usually do say no. But at least I know that it is available. It isn't just phone companies either. Basically every company that does business should feel obligated to collect the information available to them and use it to serve the customer better.
-Brentkinda OT - Is it just me - or are many of you as angry and disgusted with corporate reality these days?
I got my long distance bill from sprint yesterday. I make very few longdistance calls, and my bill was 78.55 - 62 of which was an 11 minute call to the phillipines which I didnt even make. They charged 5.60/minute for that call. but since I couldnt prove to them that I didnt make the call - all they allowed me to do was take 50% off the call.
First of all no phone call to anywhere should be 5.60 per minute.
I am so tired of telecom companies and all of their billing tactics.
What can be done? do we as a nation of millions and millions just sit around as any semblamce of a financially happy and fair existence erodes around us forever?
Are any of you out there as fed up as I am with the way we are gouged for every "service" out there.
Cable, phone, internet, gas, power - you name it and the price fixing monopolistic ways and the insidious support from plastic politicians is totally out of hand. and it seems that the populous is so numb to it that not only have I lost faith in all business - but I am quickly losing faith in people in general?
OT i know - but i would like to hear some of your opinions - are you experiencing the same thing? are enough people experiencing this so that maybe some momentum towards making a change will start?
Well your former employment in the telco industry didn't stop you from making an ass of yourself and suggesting the article was somehow about mistaking Washington State for DC.
You don't have to know how the break up of the telcos went to notice that this is a Washington State news site reporting. It will affect DC, but you're the one who needs to get your facts straight.
(I am not Dejohn.)
With the judiciary stuffed with rightwing judges, we can count on Verizon being protected from consumers.
I find it odd that when we have cameras in the streets in England all the US peeps here start ranting on about privacy yet with this case they are all saying "so what?". I cannot see what the issue is with privacy in a public place. It seems contradictory to me to see a public place as a privacy issue. Yet when someone wants to release private details everyone is saying "so what?".
I would be seriously pissed if they sold my details and would take any company that sold my details without my "given" permission to court. I have private privacy and would fight to keep it yet I cannot see that such a thing as public privacy exists.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Time for a $79 answering machine that only lets through callers on your whitelist, or who have a PIN you assign. Everybody else gets "Press 1 to leave a message" and is not allowed to ring your phone.
Hopefully this will not give USPS any ideas! They could get an almost perfect profile on you if they wanted. What about FedEx? They would know who bought what kind of stuff on the Internet and would be able to put together a superbly targeted direct mailing list for almost any business. The problem with FedEx is that the "stuff" is readily available in machine readable form.
Help fight continental drift.
I was a Verizon customer up until a couple months ago . Since I enjoy a quality high speed cablemodem already, I signed up with Vonage. I "highly" recommend them to anybody who has the bandwidth to use their service.
They are not 100% perfect, but if/when something happens, they've made it a point to notify customers of what was going on. Without even complaining, I received a $5 refund for a 1 day outage. They also have very good customer reps that answer your email/calls quickly and professionally.
I never liked Verizon from the first time I moved into their service area. Their customer service seemed more wary of me as a new subscriber than happy to do business. I used their automated online system to order service, and they did not activate my phone service the day I requested. I called up to find out why, and they wanted me to pay $250 deposit. $250 deposit for phone service? WTF? That's at least 6 months worth of service. After bitching, they then offered to waive the deposit if I got my old phone company to right a "letter of recommendation" saying that I was a previous customer in good standing. Uhg.. pain in the ass, but worth saving $250.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Ok, so let's say that Verizon does arguably have some sort of "right" to use personal information of their customers.
Let's also say that consumers certainly have the right to not allow some other entity to use their personal data.
Let's say that those rights are equal in the eye of the law.
Let's say that the weight of the rights of the entity 'Verizon' is equal to the number of people that make up that entity (all Verizon employees and shareholders).
Let's say that the weight of the rights of the Verizon customer base is equal to the number of those customers
Now, put one group on each side of a balance scale.
Two questions:
Who would have more weight?
Who should have more weight?
Just a thought, but why can't this thing be legally stopped on the basis of Verizon (or my bank, mortage company, credit card issuer, etc) using my likeness without my permission? They're effectively selling my life story (cheaply, to be sure), and selling a statistical picture of me. I'm certainly not a public figure, so if someone took a picture of me in a non-public place (eg. my home), they couldn't sell it without my permission. So how feasible would it be to apply the same restrictions to my life's story and statistical profile? Any lawyers lurking?
Remain calm! All is well!
It's often kind of naive to think that legislation will solve a problem. You're lucky if the problem is even stated.
Corporations use their resources, such as money and PR firms, to cloud the public debate. This is one of the ways. If your PR firm fails in stopping legislation by way of political donations, then there is still plenty of time to stop it in terms how regulation is executed.
Like this case, corporations can sue to stop enforcement and when they are caught violating the law, they often negotiate the total fine down considerably to a mere slap on the wrists.
The situation is made worse when presidential administrations make it easy to lax enforcement of regulation, such as our current president. "Working with business", it is called.
But don't be fooled into thinking that Democrats aren't subject to moneyed interests either. Democrats have also abandoned the ideals of their constituents for the almighty dollar.
A day of political reckoning will come for both the Republican and Democratic party...
I was a Verizon customer up until a couple months ago . Since I enjoy a quality high speed cablemodem already, I signed up with Vonage. I "highly" recommend them to anybody who has the bandwidth to use their service.
They are not 100% perfect, but if/when something happens, they've made it a point to notify customers of what was going on. Without even complaining, I received a $5 refund for a 1 day outage. They also have very good customer reps that answer your email/calls quickly and professionally.
I never liked Verizon from the first time I moved into their service area. Their customer service seemed more wary of me as a new subscriber than happy to do business. I used their automated online system to order service, and they did not activate my phone service the day I requested. I called up to find out why, and they wanted me to pay $250 deposit. $250 deposit for phone service? WTF? That's at least 6 months worth of service. After bitching, they then offered to waive the deposit if I got my old phone company to right a "letter of recommendation" saying that I was a previous customer in good standing. Uhg.. pain in the ass, but worth saving $250.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
(_*_) Can you hear me now!! Good.
| |
This should be a signal for a mass exodus (whenever your contract expires, unless you can get out of it). It's one thing to sell customer information underhandedly, but to sue the state government to allow them to continue to do so?
"In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle yesterday, Verizon has accused the state rules of violating the company's right to free speech."
Apparently they think they can sell anything they get their hands on. Would they use the same free speech argument to sell stolen trade secrets?
"We completely concede that customers' privacy must be protected"
Funny wording - 'completely conceding' is like saying:
"we really want to sell/use your information but we want to make it look like we desire to protect you",
except they need to hire a better speech writer - someone who knows not to use diction like "concede" when trying to convince people that they aren't doing anything that people shouldn't like.
I dont know what country you live in, but here in America (you know, on planet Earth) you DO have a constitutional right to make money. Not only is it your right but it's expected for tax reasons.
Ever hear of the pursuit of happiness? Pretty hard to be happy living in a card board box with no hope of retirement or medical benefits.
If we didn't have a right to earn a living we would be soviet russia where the state provides it all.
Next time think about it
how most of you would react if it was anonymous tracking with no way to connect you specifically to the account. Say, for example, they tracked that a particular client made 3 calls in a day: one from a pizza parlour, one from a gas station, and one from a dry cleaners, but did not keep any information about that client except the age and gender. I don't think I would mind that at all, to be honest, and I would probably allow them to associate my age and gender with the information. I can't be tracked by it. I mean, do you have any idea how many 21 year old males there are in my city alone? And I'm not even in that big a city, only having 760,000 inhabitants.
... does not share call-detail outside its companies and needs to monitor calling habits to offer customers better deals on phone service. While I don't know if it's a particularly trustworthy source, it seems to me that they're on the level, since it would be counterproductive for them to sell information about your calling habits to the competition....
It's actually within the company's rights to sell that information, because all they're tracking is what hardware was used to connect to their networks, and where the connection was made. It's their information to sell. The point that most of you are concerned about, I think, is not that they're tracking where the hardware was used, but that they have the potential to track who belongs to that hardware.
From the article.... "We completely concede that customers' privacy must be protected," They also say that Verizon
I'd still insist on anonymity, but I don't think I would object to my phone company tracking my calling habits if it meant that I could save 5 bucks a month on my phone bill.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
What is their slogan?
"let Vonage ownage your phonage."?
Libraries will soon have to give up the list of books you read to them, in case you are a terrorist. In the future they'll add other things they search for that aren't terrorists, in decreasing order of public fright, like pedophiles, serial killers, rapists and on down until they are doing it to check for people who are checking out "How to Pirate Windows XP".
To save time, please call the nearest federal prison and reverse your spot now, to insure that sufficient new prisons are built to handle the 26.7% of US population that will be imprisoned by 2050. Thanks for your cooperation!
Sincerely,
John Ashcroft, Pres^H^H^H^HAttorney General
"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"
Obviously, he also believes that the customers do not have any rights, especially not the right to privacy and the right to not be buggered by sales droids twice a day.
I believe I should have a right to shoot any corporate drone who trespasses on my property, my rights or my safety. Oh wait, I'm not sure if I can carry enough bullets.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
We believe we have certain rights as people to our privacy.
A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
[ring!]
Hello?
Can you hear me now?
Uh, yeah, who is th-
Good! Can we spam^H^H^H^Hsell something to you now?
No thanks, I'm not inter-
Good! We're currently running a special on the following items-
I said NO, #$@% it!
But that was then! You might have changed your mind between then and now! Our other specials include-
[growling] I see. In that case, go have a gasoline enema and sit on a lit welding torch. Goodbye, and don't ever call me again! [click]
Jeeze, the nerve of those fscking bast-
[ring!]
Hello?
Can we spam you now? Good! As I was sayi-
[sound of a phone being hurled to the floor and then stomped on]
[voiceover] At Verizon, we're doing our part to annoy you until you explode!
You know, I think they should be allowed to sell information about you to their affiliates. They just need to redefine 'affiliate' to mean "any company whose CEO has personally slept with with the wife of Verizon's CEO." *That* makes you an 'affiliate' in my book. None of this "if I sell something to you then you're my affiliate" bullshit!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I'm bent over, take me now! What wider? Sure, anything you want! Long as I get my daily dose of FOX PrimeTime programming, I'll do whatever you want me to!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Yes, I did forget about the customers acquired through GTE, etc. For this I apologise. Verizon has about 135 million wireline equivalent customers, and about 31 million wireless customers, so it's pretty easy to overlook the 1 million or so in the Pacific Northwest.
But, at least I'm man enough to be identified. What about you?
I invite you and any other Slashdotters who shop at Safeway to use my card.
I knew should have held onto that last mod point. Bravo Zulu for ingenuity.
Just wardial sex lines (not the 1-900 ones, but rather those who ask you to enter your credit card number) during the night. That oughta overload their databases.
PURSUIT of happiness != happiness
You do not in any sense have the right to make money. You have the right for an opportunity to make money. And just because the law restricts one of your "opportunities" does not mean we live in a communist or socalist state. Why I could be a rich and successful contract killer if only some corporate savior would petition the government on my behalf to make it legal.
I'm typing this at some library terminal...
You know they are watching.
Semi-Annon.
kids - I could not care less about Verizon sharing my information with their affiliates in order to sell me cheaper products.
After all, this amounts to essentially an annoyance as distinct from an invasion of privacy. The latter is a significantly stronger, higher and deeper concern on my list.
IOW, this is what they call small potatoes.
Where I am concerned is with the elephant in the room - the unfolding "Total Information Awareness" system that leaks information beyond corporate affiliates and to the Federal Government.
And, all kinds of information: medical, fiscal, e-mail content etc. etc. etc.
This is where our privacy and anti-information sharing energies should go, IMHO.
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Remember, Washington State is out front with these relatively strict rules. That's why there is a lawsuit there, and why we are reading about it. But presumably, those of us in the other 49 states have no such protection in the first place. So our cell providers are probably already doing this. Sounds like federal legislation is needed.
Temptation Island, the Candid Camera Edition: Follow a bunch of people with the best technology you can put your hands on, WITHOUT them knowing or consenting. Petty privacy invasion allowed, like hidden cameras and microphones in subjects homes, offices, etc. Broadcast from a server hidden somewhere in Central Asia or Eastern Europe. Each 3 or 4 days you let paying viewers vote for the participant with the most boring life. The most voted is dropped. Go on until there is only one person left.
I bet those guys at ECHELON play this game all the time.
The issue is not whether "corporations have rights"; as a matter of law they do. That's pretty clear.
Here are the correct questions to ask in this case:
The answer to the first question is no. Commercial speech does not enjoy the same status as other forms of speech. Hence we have legislative restrictions on it. TV spots for pharmaceutical drugs have to mention the diarrhea, vomiting, rash, etc. Joe Camel cannot appear prominently in childrens' magazines, nor can any cigarette advertising appear on TV anymore. Newspaper advertisements designed to look like genuine articles have to prominently display the word "ADVERTISEMENT". Anti-spam legislation is beginning to appear in a few states. Nobody (successfully) raises First Amendment challenges to any of these laws because the question was settled long ago in case law. If it's commercial speech, then the First Amendment issues are a moot point.
And the answer to the second question should be obvious to anyone, unless they're being paid by Verizon to pretend they're too stupid to recognize that this is an example of commercial speech.
If you want to get results:
Phone your Verizon rep and voice your opposition to their appeal to the federal court
Tell them you do not want your personal information given to direct marketers
Tell them you do not want your personal information used to receive products and services courtesy of Verizon.
If they do business in your state, they are obligated to state business laws.
Enough!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Verizon announced a merger today with the Department of Homeland Security.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini
I got that gem from a recent Molly Ivins editorial on privacy, thought it might be appropriate here.
All I can say is yikes.
I'm afraid there's nothing for it then . .
Line them up with the spammer and execute them. It's really the only humane thing to do now. Put them out of our misery.
Stoptional
I was with Verizon for a few months. Midway through my service contract they suddenly, without warning, changed my plan on me. Mysteriously my "Nationwide Roaming" suddenly changed to "Roaming in California Only." Mysteriously my roaming charges, and charges for going over the monthly limit of minutes went from .15 and .10 respectively to something like .88 and .55 cents respectively. Mysteriously my 1000 mobile to mobile minutes with other Verizon customers seemed to go away.
After I discovered what happened (after I recieved an exorbidant phone bill one month that I travelled outside of California extensively), I checked my service agreement that I signed.
First of all, I had no barganing power on that service contract. Cell phone companies can put whatever they want there, and you have to sign it if you want a cell phone. Every company has a similar agreement. Even so, Verizon STILL seemed to break their contract with me.
Interestingly enough, it said that Verizon had to give me notice if they planned on altering the contract. They gave me no notice whatsoever.
I opened every single piece of mail they sent to me, and never once did I recieve such notice.
I couldn't get a straight answer from Verizon WHY my plan was changed on me, except that the plan I signed up for no longer existed. I wasn't sure exactly what plan I had been placed on, either, even from reading my bills and looking over every single one of their plans. On more than one occasion I was hung up on by Verizon's service representatives.
I cancelled my service and was billed $200 for early termination, even though my service agreement said I'd be billed $150. (Despite that fact, paying through the end of my contract would have still cost me more).
Instead of paying, I followed the proper instructions and immediately reported and challenged the high bills as well as the early termination fee to the Public Utilities Commission. I sent the entire contested amount to the Commission, as instructed, so that Verizon would be paid if they declined my request.
I properly informed Verizon that I was doing such as instructed so that I would not be considered late with my payments.
Along with the contested fees, I sent the Commission a copy of my service contract and a full explanation of why I believed Verizon broke its part of the service contract by not properly informing me that they were altering my service, and that I should not be subject to any early termination fees because they essentially breached their contract.
In the end the Public Utilities Commission declined my request. It took about a month.
The kicker is that even though Verizon was payed by the Commission, they charged me LATE FEES since it came to them a month later due to the whole ordeal.
I've checked a few web sites and other people's stories, and apparently similar things have happened to other Verizon customers, while it is rare. Many more complaints were made about their DSL service and landline telephone service on the east coast, however.
In one case Verizon overbilled a business DSL customer. Verizon dragged their feet for several months, and did not return the $700 or so they owed him.
If a customer owed $700 dollars to Verizon and then didn't pay for a few months, Verizon would no doubt have collection agencies on their ass.
My experiences and things conveyed to me by others who have been screwed by Verizon have convinced me that...
1) Verizion is comprised of bloodsuckers who use their service contracts as a right to screw anyone as they see fit.
2) Verizon's customer service representatives are either highly incompetent, don't care, or are ordered to seem that way. It can be tough to get information from them.
3) Appealing to the proper government authorities rarely does anything. I don't know why. Perhaps they view people who complain as being "slackers who don't want to pay their bills." Perhaps they are just too bogged down that they don't even read complaints. Perhaps they don't do anything since public officials recieve brib^H^H^H^H contributions from companies like Verizon.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
About a year ago, Qwest sent out an opt-out-or-else notice. It looks like people reacted strongly enough to change their minds. Telephone privacy needs to be a basic right.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I think we can all agree that this is both illegal and immoral, but what can we do about it? You have two options.
Which would you say is a more effective method? Those of you who guessed the second are correct. When you cancel, one of three things will happen. The first is that you will get an automated box. The second is that a person will handle your cancellation. The third is that a person will handle your cancellation and ask you why you cancelled. If it was because the invasion of privacy, do you think they care? No. They will only record it if it were something out of their control (moving, etc.).
So, why is going to your local politician a better option? The answer is that they can do something about it. You cannot (or, if you can, it's only a small fraction of what they can do) change these things. They can. They can enact laws, they can petition for laws revoked, they can influence people that are higher up. Hell, maybe one day they will become FCC Chairman and your little phone call with influence them!
The moral of the story is that you need to do something about it. Don't cancel your service, do something more proactive. Write your local politician. Contribute to the EFF, actually vote for someone who cares and will change things, there might even be a referendum relating to this that you can directly vote for/against. Do something.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nowhere in the article does it say Verizon wants to sell call data to other companies. In fact, They deny it in the article. Yet in the subject, the poster claims that's what they want to do. Quit sensationalizing.
Vote for Pedro
I have a university account which, for 4 years has never received spam - mainly because only 5 or so people have the address (family, a couple of friends and girlfriend). For everything and everyone else I use a couple of free webmail accounts.
This summer my girlfriend was in europe, and set up an excite account so she could email friends while on vacation. Very shortly after getting email from her I started getting tons of spam, many with excite as a return address. I forwarded them to abuse and postmaster@excite and they bounced - mailbox full.
Finally I had to set up a server side filter that filters out anything from excite.com, but I still get several spams per day from other sources. There is no doubt in my mind that excite harvested my email address from the to field and sold it to spammers.
Like any company, they are trying to make as much money as they can. Selling data is profitable, because marketers love data that lets them target customers better. One can argue if it's bad for consumers or not, but as long as it doesn't piss off enough customers that leave, it's good for Verizon.
So why is protecting users good for the DSL biz? Because, as much as they would never admit it, file sharing is one of the killer apps of broadband. It's the reason many broadband users have it, it's the reason I plan to get it in the near future. Let's face it, nobody needs more than a modem to post on slashdot, check their email, or shop on ebay. But if you want dozens of pirated songs or movies, broadband is great. As much as the ads might trumpet about streaming video, P2P is the main app for broadband, and Verizon having to discourage their users from using p2p would shrink dsl demand and hurt Verizon.
I have blog like everyone else
Perhaps I'm not a man...
But you have shown that you are the best of men, one who can admit when he has made a mistake. I was misled before.
I have only two words: "fuck" and "them".
Every prison has more phone taps than a religious exile. It's hard to tap prayers, much less atheist ones.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
It has more to do with what I buy and eat than any form of rebellion or boycott, but generally I don't shop at supermarkets. I cook mostly from scratch, so I shop at farmers' markets, health food stores, fish markets, etc. So it's quite a shock when I do go in a supermarket and see the double prices for not using a card. Just one more reason not to go there in the first place...
OTOH, you can beat the system by signing up using a false name. Of course, you blow your cover the first time you pay with a debit or credit card!
A couple of supermarket chains have started advertising "card-free" business -- Stater Bros. in southern CA comes to mind. And they're still cheaper than everyone else's "discount" prices.
For example, if they can monitor whom I call, then it would be legal for them to call me back and ask me to repeat my pizza order because they fouled it up, then dispatch a pizza to my house to beat the pizza delivery service that I called. Same for plumbers, ambulances, electricians, any kind of home delivery or repair, flowers sent by 800 number to relatives across the country, etc. What fun!
Good.
Verizon wireless. We never stop spying on you.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
and
Yeah, I guess that is too confusing for PHBs to understand. When words reach 10 letters long, they can't seem to handle it very well. But I'm not surprised. There are lots of things company executives at Verizon are confused about, such as honesty. And there's that strictness imposed by words such as "may not" and "must allow". That reminds me of my 5th grade teacher. Oh the horror that their right to screw consumers' privacy would be denied.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
...is that every new service they want to sell you comes from a "separate" company set up as an outside contractor, so to get that service you have to give them permission to share your information with "other companies."
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.
sell all the email address that aren't hotmail and nobody can use anything but hotmail.
It would lead me to wonder if they've got no-spam-to-hotmail clauses in their contracts among evil empires (spammers and email sellers to spammers).
I've been wondering why they would send so much spam that it pretty much makes your email box useless. Now I see that that is just the point!
actually not on the payroll, then I'd have to agree with you, but how long has it been since any regulatory commision actually made a decision in favor of the customer instead of the large corporation ? Arbitration and regulatory commisions are just tools so the corporation can screw you over and then get a say in how much the fine should be...
BTW everyone I know has the numbers programmed in anyways, so switching is a one time thing, tho business cards do add expense and hassle...
and if the customer loss rate was significant NO OTHER company would try anything that stupid, and would probably do the opposite to try and lure customers away from V.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Everyone talks about the companies, but not the people who RUN the company.
Maybe you heard of a scum bag over at the RIAA, Hillary Rosen?
Look who runs Verizon.
James R. Barker, Chairman of Interlake Steamship Co. and Vice Chairman of Mormac Marine Group, Inc. and Moran Towing Corporation. Director of The Pittston Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1976-2000); Chairperson of Public Policy Committee and member of Audit and Finance Committee. Age 66.
Edward H. Budd, Retired Chairman, Travelers Corporation. Director of Delta Airlines, Inc. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1985-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 68.
Richard L. Carrion, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Popular, Inc. (bank holding company) and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. Director of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1995-1997); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 49.
Robert F. Daniell, Retired Chairman, United Technologies Corporation; Chairman (1987-1997). Director of Shell Oil Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1996-2000); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 68.
Helene L. Kaplan, Of Counsel, law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Director of Exxon Mobil Corporation; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; The May Department Stores Company; Metropolitan Life, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1990-1997); Chairperson of Corporate Governance Committee and member of Audit and Finance Committee. Age 68.
Charles R. Lee, Chairman of the Board since April 1, 2002. Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer (June 2000 - March 2002). Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, GTE Corporation (1992-2000). Director of Marathon Oil Corporation; The Procter & Gamble Company; United States Steel Corporation; United Technologies Corporation. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1989- 2000). Age 62.
Sandra O. Moose, Senior Vice President and Director of The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. Director of Rohm and Haas Company; CDC-IXIS Funds. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1978-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 60.
Joseph Neubauer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ARAMARK Corporation (managed services); President (1983-1997). Director of CIGNA Corporation; Federated Department Stores; First Union Corporation. Director since 1995; member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 60.
Thomas H. O'Brien, Retired Chairman, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Director of BlackRock, Inc.; Hilb, Rogal and Hamilton Company; USAirways. Director since 1987; Chairperson of Audit and Finance Committee and member of Public Policy Committee. Age 65.
Russell E. Palmer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Palmer Group (corporate investment firm). Director of Honeywell International Inc.; The May Department Stores Company; Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1984-2000); Chairperson of Human Resources Committee and member of Corporate Governance Committee. Age 67.
Hugh B. Price, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban League. Director of Metropolitan Life, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Sears, Roebuck and Co. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1995-1997); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 60.
Ivan G. Seidenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer since April 1, 2002. President and Co-Chief Executive Officer (June 2000 - March 2002). Chairman of the Board (December 1998-June 2000) and Chief Executive Officer (June 1998-June 2000); Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer (1997-1998); Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NYNEX Corporation (1995-1997). Director of Boston Properties, Inc.; CVS Corporation; Honeywell International Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1991-1997). Age 55.
Walter V. Shipley, Retired Chairman, The Chase Manhattan Corporation; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (1983-1992; 1994-1999). Director of Exxon Mobil Corporation; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1983-1997); member of Corporate Governance Committee and Human Resources Committee. Age 66.
John W. Snow, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, CSX Corporation (global freight). Director of Circuit City Stores, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; United States Steel Corporation. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1998-2000); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 62.
John R. Stafford, Chairman, Wyeth (pharmaceutical and healthcare products). Honeywell International Inc.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1989-1997); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 64.
Robert D. Storey, Partner, law firm of Thompson, Hine & Flory LLP. Director of The Procter & Gamble Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1985-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 65.
Lift with your legs, not with your back.
Regulated monopolies are a very special type of corporation - they've convinced the state to forbid other companies to compete with them, and to give them lots of other special status, in return for regulation to limit their activities in ways that ostensibly protect the public from abuse of the monopoly. Restrictions on their use of customer data are a reasonable and highly appropriate restriction, and if Verizon doesn't like it, they can see if they can get the state to let them out of the regulations in return for giving up their monopoly status - fat chance they'll go for that. Or they can threaten to sell their phone company monopoly territory to other people.
I've spent most of my career working for various parts of The Phone Company (not Verizon...), and my view is that the whole "natural monopoly" theory that was invented to justify granting regulated monopoly status was a total crock, and that Theodore Vail, the robber baron who got the Bell System into its dominant monopoly status, could have done better things with his life and his company, and the US (and indirectly, the rest of the world), would have been able to do much more technical innovation if the phone companies and radio broadcasting quasi-monopolies hadn't been done. Needless to say, this is not my employer's official opinion, except for the approximately one three-millionth of them that I own :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Let's be fair here...Washinton hosts the biggest corporate anarchist in the world, namely Microsoft. If you are going to attack Verizon for it's marketing tactics Washinton state, why not go after Microsoft too. Or is it that Washington has something to lose if they mess with Microsoft.....Lots of money. The government IS big business......wake up washington!!
That is the best idea for a tv show i have ever heard - i would never turn it off
... have to use the bathroom at some point.
i would never move from in front of the tv
i would
don't do it - just say no!
The Verizon PR guy was probably a fucking Canadian. They have no fucking clue on how to act in a civilized world. The US should simply take Canada over for their own good before they become a true danger to themselves.
Stupid Canucks!
R U listening? Listen to me you yellow-belly whoredawgs. It will be a cold, cold day in hell before I spend a penny on your sorry ass!
Let's look at the first question: Is data free speech? I would say no. Free speech has almost always been equated with the right of human expression, whether it be expressing an opinion or viewpoint thru actual speech, writings, music, art, dance, clothing, whatever. Call data doesn't fit this description at all. So to say this data constitutes speech is inconsistant with the ideals of human expression both in spirit and function.
The second question is less clear: who's rights take precedence? I would argue that this point is moot given that I don't believe call data is free speech. But let's say that it is in some sort of perverse way. Since it's been established that rights can have limits when they risk injury, I would conclude that the right to speech must yield to a person's right to privacy in this case. This has already come up in the courts regarding candid cameras. While it's perfectly legal to use a candid camera, it's not ok to use it to single out individuals by name for public ridicule. Selling personal phone information opens the door to such ridicule. Consider if you made a call to a medical clinic for reasons that you'd rather not be made public. Would you really want that info sold and made publicly available to every sleezy telemarketer?
I really hope that Verizon loses on this. Corporations are out of control in this country. They seem to have lost all respect for the public in general and it's getting worse.
BTW: You can thank that moron Duhbya for the FCC rule change that's allowing this to happen.
When all else fails, run.
Follow a bunch of people with the best technology you can put your hands on, WITHOUT them knowing or consenting.
....
That sounds like the Monty Python sketch called "Blackmail"
But right now, yes everyone is the moment you've all been waiting for; it's time for our 'Stop the Film' spots! As you know, the rules are very simple. We have taken a film which contains compromising scenes and unpleasant details which could wreck a man's career. (gasp) But, the victim may 'phone me at any moment, and stop the film. But remember the money increases as the film goes on, so,.... the longer you leave it, the more you have to pay! Tonight, 'Stop the Film' visits the little Thames-side village of Thames Ditton.
(music--announcer's voice over)
Well, here we go, here we go now, let's see...where's our man. Oh yes, there he is behind the tree now.... Mm, boy, this is fun, this is good fun.... He looks respectable, so we should be in for some real...real shucks here.... A member of the government, could be a brain surgeon, they're the worst.... WHOW! Look at the *size* of that.....briefcase. Aah, yes, he's, he's up to the door, rung the doorbell now.... O-oh, who's the little number with the nightie and the whip, eh? Heh-heh. Doesn't look like his mother....
And I just cancelled my MCI account but a few days ago. Then of course, Qwest did their part by trying to sell me some wireless service, but they're next. Now I only need to find a good, more inexpensive, more ethical alternative without the executive-level incompetence. Oh...and get this...I get to pay a fee for the privilege of having someone type in an account number and whatever the "cancel" command is. And to make it even worse, I get to pay the fee again if and when I decide on another long distance service.
Last time I checked I have broadband. All I need is a cellphone. So what's the use of a stupid land line that costs more than a cellphone just on monthly fees alone???
I apologize for this off-topic posting which was submitted to the Slashdot editors, but which was rejected earlier today.
I believe that this story is very in line with the usual Slashdot fare, except that this story deals with hi-tech being used in a politically incorrect fashion.
I also believe that a public debate on the issues and actions discussed in this article is vital to the health of this country, and so therefore I am posting this article here.
If you are an American citizen, of whatever race, who is concerned with the future of America, then I ask you to Mod Up this post so that other are more likely to read it.
Thank you.
this Wired News story tells the story of the hi-tech being used by a group of tech-savvy ranchers in Arizona is using military technology to monitor and apprehend illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico into the United States.
Members of the group have spiked their land with thousands of motion sensors. They also use infrared tracking devices, global positioning systems, night vision goggles, radar and other gear to survey movement near the border.
Go to the Wired News story for more...
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
....my father got a cell phone from sprint (he got a REAL good deal with SOoooo many minutes included that he calls all the time now) and doesn't use his land line phone any more. Now if only the cell phone didn't keep dropping out every 3 minutes and he has to call again and again and again every time it hangs up by itself. (Can't they do ANYTHING right in NYC?).
please post instructions. thanks!
--sa
Is located over here [verizon.com]. Verizon's "Do Not Call" Policy for Consumers If you don't want to receive sales calls from Verizon business units, you can ask us to place your name on a "Do Not Call" List. In compliance with federal and state laws, we'll document your request immediately. Please allow up to 60 days for your name and telephone number to be removed from any sales programs that are currently underway. Your request to be on a "Do Not Call" List will be honored by the Verizon company which receives your request. When we solicit new customers, we will also honor "Do Not Call" requests on behalf of consumers from the Direct Marketing Association and various state-agency lists. * Your request can be in writing or by phone, and must include your name, address, and telephone number. * If you have multiple telephone numbers, tell us all numbers that you want to be included. * You'll remain on our "Do Not Call" List for 10 years, unless you ask to be removed. * If your name, address or telephone number ever changes, you must give us your new information for your "Do Not Call" status to remain in effect. For more than a century, customers have counted on Verizon's telephone companies to respect and protect the privacy of information we obtain in the normal course of providing service. While we are working hard to serve you in new and exciting ways, our commitment to protecting your privacy remains as strong as ever. Being on a "Do Not Call" List means that you won't receive sales calls by anybody representing that Verizon company. We may still, however, contact you for non-solicitation purposes, for things like service-related notices and surveys, billing and other communications. Our telemarketers are trained to comply with this policy, and we periodically monitor them to verify that this policy is being followed. We want you to know we appreciate you as a customer and respect your right to privacy. Hrm.. How interesting.. Damn I'm glad I own a cell phone... if only the majority of the US wasn't considered rural, and I happened to live in a rural area! What a monopoly. What's sad is that it's like this with just about every other utility company in the area (Gas and electric just to name the big ones). Law should protect the majority, the majority of US citizens live in RURAL areas. Yet, nothing for the rural areas. WTF?
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
One of the rules states that phone companies may not share call-detail information with other companies without permission.
After all, the data is created by the sequence of numbers a person pushs when making calls just as a book is created by a sequence of keys pressed by the person who is writing the book. You would think this has to fall under the copyright act somewhere, right?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"
Really Mr. Jones, you endorse these people? Your credibility just went to 0.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they want to sell general pseudoanonymous stats (i.e., reveal trends, but not specifically who follows them...i.e., they know that #135256 calls X Y times, but not who #135256 is), that might be alright.
But it looks like these fucks want to sell our numbers to telemarketer spammers who want to blast us with their worthless useless ads. Some of these FUCKS even have the nerve to call MY NUMBER and play a recording? Next time some telemarketer calls me (who's a real person) I'm going to tell that mother fucker off and tell him where to shove it.
Corporations do not have rights. People -- individuals -- have rights. The only important thing here is OUR rights to privacy.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I think that I will start harvesting every last bit of information that I can about any employee or business partner of any company that behaves in this manner, and then proceed to make THEIR information available free. I'm saying post entire lists with every available name, phone number, email address and even their personal information if I come across it, all over the internet in thousands of locations, and actually call telemarketing firms and provide the lists to every telemarketer firm that I can get my hands on. That way they can't get any business done, since they will be recieving literally thousands of unsolicited contacts per day. See how they like it for a change, and also send a polite (anonymous) email to everyone on your list, explaining exactly why they are recieving all of these contacts all of a sudden, and urge them to stop selling customer's information before more *drastic* measures have to be taken. If they can sell my information, is there any reason that I should give their's away free?
On the other hand, I don't use Verizon (California has rules allowing you to select other providers for your phone, as with electricity) for a reason - they're jackasses. With or without this in mind for Verizon, they will remain rat bastards.
This sig no verb.
A lot of people are repeating this slogan, but they never seem to give any arguments for it.
The public clearly didn't create the frequences, nor were they the first to discover or exploit them. I don't think there is any other reason to say that they are property of the public other than that the US Government has declared that it is so. Of course that is enough for many people, but it's hardly a moral argument.
Which brings me to my other point. The frequences are in no way controlled by the pulic. They are controlled by the US federal government. I know they give lip service to it being "public", but the truth is that it's controlled by the FCC, whcih the public has even less influence over than Verizon. You can at least avoid buying Verizon services.
...those clients that the phone company will be selling information to are...
the DoD or Department of Homeland Security
works out nicely doesn't it
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Funny you mention that. Last week I have started an experiment in spam. I created a new email account and gave that address out to one marketer. My plan is to count the emails they give me over a week or two then to 'unsuscibe' and see how many emails I get. I expect some pretty sad results.
The funny thing the decision whether to acquiesce or refuse to get a spy card from the supermarket is that they win either way. If you consent to being watched by a marketing weasel, they make more money. If you pay the higher price, they make more money. Presumably the deep discount will be dropped once they've snapped the backbones of a sufficient % of customers, at which time they will make even more money. It's beautiful (sniff).
I'm sympathetic to the needs of marketers (no I'm not) and see the social benefits of more efficient marketing (no I don't) and gracefully accept the additional intrusion (like fuck I do). (We do have cards; my wife does most of the shopping and is less of a petty subversive than her husband.)
You can't win. They can.
As someone who has been "employed" by corporations, I could not agree any more than I do. What they offer is very often nowhere near what they take, except for maybe the very top executives.
If corporations were taxed at Eisenhauer levels, perhaps we might get somehwere in terms of our budget deficit. But would it kill the economy? No. It would help because running huge deficits is worse.
Oh, and did I mention that we need a progressive tax structure? It's all about the consumer confidence. You ain't got a thing if no one wants that thing.
If *that* is the origin of spam, it might imply an interesting solution.
...."
For example, set up a "bounce cease and desist" server, which does several things:
(1)sets up new email addresses and probes email companies and "joke card" companies to see which ones harvest email
(2)uses the harvested email to identify which email originates from which spam-supporting-email company.
(3)Lets people sign up to the server, with the addresses of their acquaintances, and their own address, and then bounce their junk mail there.
(4)Strips the body of the junk mail, leaving just a "SPAM:" plus the header (usually its enough to get an idea), and replaces the body with a quick note. Something along the lines of "name@isp.com is recieving this kind of spam because HOTMAIL [or EXCITE or whatever] harvests the names of your contacts and sells the lists to spammers. If you do not want them getting this kind of spam, please consider switching away from hotmail until their policies change. More information may be had at
That way, people will see themselves as responsible for other peoples' spam, or will see Hotmail as being responsible for it.
Seems as though Verizon is secure enough in its monopoly to have the balls to say right out they can do whatever they want, and not only that tney have a RIGHT to it!
Because, sometimes they just have to touch the stove.
-YY1
I'm surprised we don't have any of this bullshit in Finland yet. Not many telemarketers, no companies selling data (too visibly), no DSL caps, four cellular providers available everywhere and low prices. The internet connections are at very reasonable prices at least in big cities (although in certain smaller ones there's a monopoly on DSL service which pretty much sucks), and no bandwith/transfer/usage time caps whatsoever. We have a choice of several providers of DSL connections as well as several ISPs that use those connections. Cellular service is really cheap, cheaper than landlines, and there is enough competition to keep it there.
Meanwhile in Finland, the Central Crime Police (that investigates the most serious crimes that the local police units don't handle) is holding at least three top security officers of a major telco Sonera in pretrial custody, because these people have allegedly used the call log records for investigating who from inside Sonera has talked to reporters.
By the way, privacy is a constitutional right in Finland.
Verizon used to be GTE telephone, the one competitor to Pacific Bell here in Southern California. It was NOT part of the Bell monopoly, but its largest competition. Now, however, (from the investor information page of their web site)
"Verizon Communications, (NYSE:VZ), formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE, is one of the world's leading providers of high-growth communications services. Verizon companies are the largest providers of wireline and wireless communications in the United States, with over 135 million access line equivalents and over 31 million wireless customers."
I don't recall whether GTE or Bell Atlantic was the larger company at the time of the merger. As a former GTE customer (now Verizon customer) I definitely do not think of them as a decendent of the Bell monopoly.
The solution is simple:
The phones are going to be cheap as dirt soon enough. When Worldcom comes out of bankrupty they will have no debt and will be able to lowball all of the other phone companies. And thus most of them will also (have to go) bankrupt.
And then cell phones will be cheap as dirt with unlimited anytime calling.
And so: you get a bunch of friends and you all get three or four phones each. You have them in a pool and you take one (at random). You have a way of sharing who is at which number on a given day.
And then when the government 'tracks' you they won't know which phone you are actually using that day. Simple?
The same thing is done with 'scan-saver' cards. A lot of people get them and swap them around so that the data collected is just garbage for the marketing aholes.
This is not a good thing, and we shouldn't have to do this in a free society, but what choice do we have?
Screw the people who want to watch me. I am not that interesting, but they must be far less interesting than even I.
Clearly all of this tracking is not under the consent of the governed. And it violates my Liberty and makes be very unhappy.
And with the tracking it could also be used to target me and that could be a threat to my life.
Sounds like the government is steping over the bounds of what it should be doing.
Ok, I'll be identified. I'm Laurence Fishburne. Now leave me alone.
Besides, you only admitted to forgetting a paltry number of customers, completely neglecting the fact that your entire statement about the source of the article and who it affects was wrong. Aside from that, congratulations on being identifiable.
The FBI is buying.
The real question is:
- Who owns the data they want to sell? Or better: Whom does it belong to?
If the data belongs to their customers -- it's data of their private life after all -- then Verizon can't sell it without authorization just because it is not theirs.Claus
The picture of the spammer (at the CBS news article) looks strikingly similar to the Drudge Report picture Anthony Pellicano, a top hollywood PI caught with military C4 explosives in his safe and entangled in a Steven Segal/NYTimes reporter extortion case.
;)
So the spammer is a crook in his other double life, too!
I agree wholeheartedly. They all must have apprenticed themselves to a moron to get as stupid as they collectively are.
"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"
Ok, so since I pay them for a service, they have a right to tell everyone what I do with it. That sounds like a great idea.. just think how much doctors could make from insurance companies by telling them about their patients with severe medical problems. I bet Verizon Internet could make some good money selling people's web browsing habits too.
I'm so sick of spam and telemarketers and all the other leeches that try to make a buck by selling my information.
That's a thought.. let them sell whatever of my personal information *I* designate as fair game, provided *I* get a cut of the profits.
Micropayments credited to my phone bill will do very well, thank you. Even at a few cents per item, it'll add up.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I propose a Taco Reform Act of 2002. Hence all calls you will receive again two days later after the original one was rejected, and all text messages/SMS be converted from plain english to unreadable babble.
Oh wait...
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
You can bet the former Bell Atlantic customers do think of Verizon as a descendent of the Bell monopoly. (And I believe Bell Atlantic was larger than GTE, but I'm not certain.)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
They have the "right" to sell information about me? What about my "right" for privacy? Can I sell information about Verizon to other people? No, I probably would get sued by Verizon for infringing their "rights".
I'm tempted to cancel my Versizon Wirless service. Oh wait a minute, they will charge me a big cancellation fee for doing so. Those Ba####ds!
When it comes to "rights", its whoever has the most money to buy the best lawyers to sue for you.
We're forced to have a landline at our new location, because of the TiVo. Does anyone know a way to get around that?
Just follow the day, and reach fo
>But they do sell the email address of every single person you email
Does anyone have any links to sites that verify this?
...to use my non-verizon cell phone for all calls. Long distance is already free on my plan and I've got plenty of minutes...
Well here is some thing you may find interesting about verizon. Other than owning the largest ammount of cell towers in the us, AND having a large market share of the home land lines, coming soon to a home near you.... they are trying to fight american rules on privacy when they are owned, not by a German company, but the German govenment. FREAKY!!!
This makes me so sorry that I switched my service
away from verizon and MCI to a smaller company.