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.

Comments

Rights? What about....

[jon787]

Yeah they have rights as a corporation, but what about my rights as a US citizen?

Re:Rights? What about....

[elmegil]

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.

Let me get this straight..

[outsider007]

They'd still be breaking the law, but they're asking to not get in trouble for it. What balls!

What? You didn't read your Phone Contract?

[Yo Grark]

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

Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract?

[dboyles]

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?

Bell...

[c0dedude]

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

Seems like a simple solution

[Archfeld]

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 ????

Re:Seems like a simple solution

[tshak]

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.

The New Rules

[Russellkhan]

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.

I just want to put this on the record

[cr@ckwhore]

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.

Why is it never the other way around?

[Cervantes]

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!

Public vs private privacy

[Zemran]

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.

Re:Free Speech?

[Frater 219]

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.

Re:So what we can do

[Iguanaphobic]

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.

You're asking the wrong question!

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Free speech my ass.

[Whammy666]

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.