Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Sues to Stop Privacy Rules; Wants to Sell Call Data

Posted by michael on from the make-a-buck-or-two-off-you dept.

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.

46 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. Rights? What about.... by jon787 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).
    1. Re:Rights? What about.... by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful
      In Washington state, where you're probably buying cellular, there's lots of choice.

      In any state where you must be a verizon customer to get local service, there is no "right to choose a different phone company". As far as it goes, all the phone companies are doing this same crap, so there's no choice among business practices there either, realy.

      And as for opt out...don't even get me started. I don't have enough time in my life to read every "privacy statement" from every company I do business with that proceeds to tell me "we're going to sell you out to the world because we know you want us to, unless you call our magical 800 number". If I got so much "benefit" from them reselling my information, I'd gladly opt in. The only reason for the opt out strategy is that they know that there is no real benefit to anyone but them, and they hope that making it a hassle to opt out means enough people won't that they'll still make their money.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Rights? What about.... by Alyeska · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Better yet: Yes they have rights as a corporation. But they are a company that uses public resources -- our frequencies.

      Those frequencies are public resources, same as National parks or interstate highways, and their use by companies like Verizon should be subject to regulation/legislation for the public's best interest. If we want to tell them they have to hop on one leg and squawk like a raven to have rights to the frequencies, we should be able to do that.

    3. Re:Rights? What about.... by arkanes · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When they sell _MY_ phone number, and who _I_ call, and for how long, and when, so that someone else can call _ME_ to try to sell me something, I'd say that has alot to do with me, and not "generic usage patterns".

      As for how much it cost them to run the line, it didn't cost them shit, because all that was paid for years ago by the Bells, and in no small part with federal money.

    4. Re:Rights? What about.... by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The Constitution protects rights reserved by the people, but it unfortunately does not list them explicitly. For a while, say from 1940 to 1985, it would have been likely taken for granted by most that these must surely include some right of privacy, such an obvious right that it went without mentioning in the Constitution, except as unreasonable searches were outlawed. Nowadays, with the strict constructionist Republican appointees having a stranglehold on the Constitution, this interpretation is pretty much dead.

      Most people don't realize that prior to the New Deal, the Court just about never ruled in favor of individual rights other than property rights and freedom for the wealthy and powerful to be unoppressed. Nowadays with the Court swinging back to that old way of thinking and with wealth and power more concentrated than ever, there could be big changes coming for America.

    5. Re:Rights? What about.... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The Constitution protects rights reserved by the people, but it unfortunately does not list them explicitly."

      That's probably more "fortunate" than "unfortunate."

      What an 18th century revolutionary politician might have considered important enough to itemize as a list of rights, perhaps even implying excluding anything not on the list is not a right, might not compare to what we find important today.

      I think it's quite fortunate that the founders saw fit to spell out one of the most revolutionary concepts ever brought forth in government: That people have all rights, except those limitations which are specifically imposed.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Rights? What about.... by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      frankly, i'm glad someone is paying attention to my wants and needs

      Me too, and in this case it's the legislature. If the phone company cared what I wanted they wouldn't be gathering data about my calls and trying to sell it because that's very very much not what I want.

      If you're having difficulty understanding this, perhaps it will help to note that I don't want to be immersed in a tub of harmless spiders either. I don't, or shouldn't, need an explanation for either of these things. It doesn't matter whether it can hurt in any way that you comprehend. It is something unpleasant for me (and evidently for enough people that legislatures are taking note), rationalisations be damned.

      If you WANT to broadcast your calling habits (or smother yourself with spiders), please note that you are still entitled to do so.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
  2. Free Speech? by EnglishTim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this free speech?

    Free license to make a buck, more like...

    I know this comes up after every goddamn /. article, but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...

    1. Re:Free Speech? by Frater+219 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...

      As a libertarian myself, I feel the need to forestall an argument that some of my fellow libertarians might make: that such laws cannot be justly applied to the telecommunications market; that they are an improper restraint on legitimate trade, or free speech; etc. The fact of the matter is that the telecoms system as we know it is a construct of government regulation. Its "privatized" structure is merely a corporatized extension of national governments, like the old colonial "Companies" (think "British East India Company", etc.) which enriches investors whilst furthering government policy.

      Free-market telecommunications have been systematically denied any chance to establish themselves. Most Americans believe that AT&T was a monopoly created by the market and dismantled by the government, for instance, but this is far from the case. The Cato report "Unnatural Monopoly" details the United States Federal Government's actions in creating the AT&T telephone monopoly, for various political and nonmarket purposes. In doing so, members of Congress went so far as to characterize market competition as "duplicative, destructive, and wasteful." (Many European nations did not even bother to allow private telecommunications systems, building them as government monopolies. In some cases, these were later "privatized" in such a way as to preserve the majority of their monopoly positions, while making money for rich investors. This is not a free market; it is state-capitalism.)

      Much the same applies to radio, of course: the FCC and its ilk created an artificial scarcity of the radio spectrum, parceling out freedom of speech via radio as if photons were the government's own creation. Those who choose to speak without a government license to do so, it criminalizes as "pirates". Radio equipment is inexpensive and not difficult to maintain; it is radio licensing that reserves the medium as a playground for large corporations. Moreover, when the government has the power to license speech, it has the power to censor, say the courts: hence the countless "words you can't say on television" though you may speak them freely in a meeting-hall.

      (Too US-centric for you? Here, try Panama, where the telecoms monopoly is using government threats to force ISPs to block competition in the form of voice-over-IP services.)

      The telecommunications industry is not a free market; and its constructs are not private enterprises, no matter how many investors they may enrich (or bankrupt). They were created and empowered by regulation. Their markets are patrolled by censorship. They are firms granted the power to tax; government agencies granted stock-market symbols and an oligopolic pretense at competition. As such, they are no more entitled to sell data about their taxpayers (aka "customers") than is, say, the Internal Revenue Service.

  3. Let the techno-illiterate in on why this is bad! by TheLOTR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  4. Let me get this straight.. by outsider007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? by Yo+Grark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? by Soulfader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most such waivers have "except as prohibited by state and federal laws" clauses thrown in there somewhere. It sounds like this is what Verizon is trying to get the feds to protect them from.

    2. Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? by dboyles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.

      As others have said in previous topics, just because it's in a contract doesn't make it lawful or enforceable. You most certainly do not negate your privacy rights simply by using their service. Do you really think that my phone service provider could record my phone conversations and distribute them as they please?

      --
      -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    3. Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When a contract contradicts a state law, the state law overrides.

      Verizon is desperate to get this state law invalidated, otherwise they can't get people to sign away the privacy rights in question because it would nto be legal to do so.

  6. Freedom of Information by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  7. Bell... by c0dedude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  8. Seems like a simple solution by Archfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?
    1. Re:Seems like a simple solution by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No problem, I will:

      A) Give up my number that all my clients, partners, friends, and family have.

      B) Switch to another large corporation that is also looking to profit more and will probably be following Verizon's act.

      This, my friend, is why we have regulation. Because really, in many cases, we don't have much of a choice.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:Seems like a simple solution by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um...

      One of those regulations is that if you switch local providers, they have to let you keep your #.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:Seems like a simple solution by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Except the guy/girl transfering you is probably someone making 7$/hr in some call center who couldn't give a rip about your problems or what the company is doing (or even knows).

      Only reason I know this is because I work in one...

  9. The New Rules by Russellkhan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Under new Washington rules, telephone companies:
    • may not use "call-detail," such as when, where, to whom, or how often calls are made, to sell services unless customers give express permission
    • may not share call-detail information with other companies without permission
    • must allow customers to "opt out" -- take their names and numbers off lists the company shares with other companies
    • must make it easy for customers to opt out, using e-mail, a toll-free number or postage-paid return card


    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.
  10. Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state by DebianGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Sick of this crap by ralphus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I live in Washington State. I was happy to see the law passed that restricted this kind of activity, but was afraid that suits like this were coming.

    "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
  12. Rights vs. Right by Hamstaus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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"
  13. I just want to put this on the record by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  14. Why is it never the other way around? by Cervantes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  15. Public vs private privacy by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. Balance of Rights by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  17. Re:I Wonder... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only thing is that you assume that they are only associating your age and gender. Which they probably are - for that particular statistical gathering session.

    But associating all the other data-bits with all that is just the flip of a switch, say by subpeona? (sp) oh, oops - wrong person. oh - very sorry we forgot to turn that off.

    OH - hey mr. homeland security agent. Whats that? you want call tracking info for every client whos name contains the strings "moha" "mad" "al" "ali" - sure no problem. Oh - dont worry I promise i wont tell them that you requested this info...

    ya- you know I really dont care if they were to know about my age and gender and what pizza and porn shops I make calls from - what bothers me is giving them the approval to create such a system that can so easily be abused and I would never know about it.

    But thats why i refuse to have a cell phone at all.

  18. Re:Businesses *should* have the right. by Soulfader · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.
    If you don't want to spend time shopping for the best deal, then go ahead and opt in--no one wants to take that away from you.

    For myself, I will shop when I want a service, and would prefer to be left alone until such time. No calls. No mail. No e-mail. Definitely no visits.

  19. Re:Is this the same Verizon... by zapfie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe because modern corporations are a collection of people and not a single entity, as much as their presentation wants you to think otherwise?

    --
    slashdot!=valid HTML
  20. Re:So what we can do by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here is a link to a California only answering service. For $9.90 per month, you get a four minute message and the ability to record as many messages (up to four minutes each) that you like. Couple this with a Pay As You Go phone card and the payphone down the block and you have a low cost alternative to anyones monopoly.

    --
    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
  21. Re:USPS /FedEx? by bstadil · · Score: 3, Insightful
    they have no clue what CD's

    They do not need to know what CD's only that you buy CD's and at what frequency. Now what else do you buy? You got stuff from NewEgg, most likely computer equipment and you had a couple of items delivered from TheGap.

    Now I am launching a new Designer Multimedia oriented PDA. Would I want you on my direct mail list? You bet.

    Do I want the person that monthly gets a package from a pharmaceuticals shop and has twice had something delivered from Wheelchairs-R-Us? Probably not.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  22. You're asking the wrong question! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You're asking the wrong question.

    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:
    • Does commercial speech enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection that applies to other forms of speech, such as political speech?
    • Does Verizon's intended use of its consumers' private data constitute an example of commercial speech, or political speech?


    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.

  23. Poster of article is a troll by geekee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  24. Corporate Rights? by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There is some small movement in the US to take away Constitutional rights from corporations. This is a bad idea in many ways, but it looks better and better every day with this kind of news. As recent discussions of the right of the government to monitor clickstream data without a warrant show, there is not always such a clear separation of content from addressing information for our modern data streams.

    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!

  25. Truth by Laika · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

  26. Free speech my ass. by Whammy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Verizon arguement about selling people's personal info as free speech is bullshit. Consider the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. The courts have ruled that free speech is not protected under these circumstances because there is a direct threat to public safety. In this case, the public's right to a safe environment to precedence over the individual's right to free speech. This is no surprise considering that the speech in question was aimed at causing a riot. Now consider Verizon's idea of selling your personal information. Does selling a 3rd parties' private information without consent constitute free speech or does it violate the person's right to privacy? Well, first we need to decide if call records are really speech or is it just data. Is raw data eligable for free speech? Secondly, if it is speech, then we're faced with a case of two rights in conflict with other -- the right of free speech vs. the right to privacy.

    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.
  27. Re:Phone Taps by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that's very very wrong. The thing is, everyone does *something* illegal. Jaywalking. Something. So the thing is, if the gov't monitors everyone, they get to choose who to persecute. If they want to fuck with anyone, they can.

    If they are going to monitor everyone, then they better well go after everyone for every infraction. Otherwise, it's not equal protection under the law. I realize that's a US law, but I'm sure you folks have something similar.

    If every single drug user went to jail, we would have realized that the war on drugs is a horrible detriment to our society a long time ago. These bad laws would have gone away. Uneven application of laws leads to very bad things.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  28. Re:Fuck them by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yelling at the drone getting paid 7 dollars an hour to feed his kids and pay for his 1983 toyoya, is not gonna do anything. Well except get you placed on the 'call him again in 2 hours' list.

  29. How are they "your" frequences? by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How are they "your" frequences? by dsoltesz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frequencies are a public resource. I didn't create trees either, but several forests are public property (as well as a few mountains, rivers, coastlines, deserts, and canyons... and don't forget airspace). Technically, the Government is the Public - it's a subset of the population who's job it is to represent the whole and act on our behalf. I do have control over the Goverment and the FCC - through voting. Granted, it's a slow process that often doesn't get the results I personally want, but it's still a better system than some of the alternatives.

  30. Re:Stop the insanity.... by valisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have to agree with this, to paraphrase Naomi Klein... 'how can the mailroom boy get to be the Chairman of the board when the mailroom has been outsourced to Pitney Bowes and he is a temporary worker from an outside agency?" Things in the UK are a little different due to a tradition of secrecy among the big players but as they get more powerful they follow their american cousins and become very bold. Most 'impartial' government advisory agencys in the UK have their boards stuffed with chairmen of corporations who aims are diametricaly opposed to regulation and legislation. Where corporations used to seem like the engine of economic growth and power, with the 1980s removal of the monopoly limiting powers and the vast expansion and 'synergetic' growth of the Global Mega Corps, they now seem set upon total exploitation of their captive markets. And with the aid of the non-elected non-representational WTO which can fine countries for passing environmental , food safety, workers rights etc laws. We have the corporations setting themselves up as the common enemy of all mankind.

    --

    Economic Left/Right: -0.62
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
  31. simple solution to this privacy issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:Phone Taps by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're right, but I don't think your conclusion is. It's not that convicted criminals shouldn't lose some of their rights; I agree with that. The real problem is the ridiculous number of laws we have in society, for meny things which really shouldn't be offences at all. If there was an easier way to erase stupid laws from the books (I believe that in the US a law cannot be 'erased', only amended?), most people WOULDN'T be breaking the law.

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.