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.
I really really want to sell private information about others
:)
Can't I PUH-LEASE Daddy
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.
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
Welcome to the information age. The question is no longer whether you are being served, but to whom.
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!
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
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..."
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.
Australia having a higher rating of phone taps than the US
I think all prisons have their phones tapped.
Wish I was a Physics Genius
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 $$$$$
I agree, verizon's policies sucks enough as it is and I already get way to many unsolicited phone calls. Verizon has all kinds of rediculous fees like I didn't want long distance, so there is a fee to not have a carrier, and there is a fee for caller id blocking, why should I have to provide my number to everyone I call or pay the price. I mean come on for my local monthly service it is like 27 bucks and I am a starving college student so it is hard for me to afford that. Worst of all when I tried to switch there were no other local services, and the only cellphone sercive that I could get reception from is Verizon. If these aren't monopolistic plicies then what are. Why would the government help them, it should be helping me the consumer but unfortunatley I don't have political pull becuase I don't have money to buy it with, so I just end up getting screwed by all this service companies. Verizon sucks plain and simple but what can we do?
-kaplan
Visualize Whirled Peas
And it doesn't affect the areas you list, as it is a state law being challenged. Washington state.
If you're going to be arrogant, at least be right.
Brevity is the soul of wit
-- Polonius
Just as I did with MCI today, leave them and vote with you $$'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 ?
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
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!
That's not true. If you're in the US Verizon is required to let you sign up with another service provider if you so choose. Verizon may be the only visible provider in your area, but you do have access to others.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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
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
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.
The parent post is probably referring to the history of Australia and how convicts used to be sent there back in the 17/1800's. Hence how Australia used to be the "largest prison in the world". Obviously, it isn't anymore - but you can still insult Australians by asking if their ancestors had to pay to get there or had transport (the deportation). For more info, you may find these sites of use.
kinda 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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
| |
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."?
"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
Actually, it's considered a status symbol to have a convict in your family....
Genealogy in Australia is basically all about finding some way of connecting your family to a first fleet convict.
Advanced users are users too!
That might be relevant if the article was about Verizon cell phone service. However, the article is about Verizon local phone service.
where will you go? they are all doing these things. you don't have a choice right now other than to choose the lesser evil.
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.
There is a great deal of difference between what meal you order and who you call, and anybody who doesn't realize the distinction is seriously deluded. Remember, proof by analogy is no proof at all. The harsh reality is that life is complicated, and in certain cases, companies should use information about you to optimize their services (for example, like Amazon.com does for your buying habits) and in other cases (especially with something as critical and personal as phone service) they shouldn't. Then you have to take into account historical precedence. Amazon.com doesn't have a history of spamming me with marketing crap. The 'affiliates' of the phone company do. Thus, I'm okay with Amazon.com using my buying habits while I have a problem with the phone company doing the same.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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...
There's a difference between the right to earn money by providing goods & services and the right to lie to & manipulate people and fuck them over for a profit.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
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...
Are you ok with that?
qz
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.
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.
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.
However, the watriess sould not be allowed to stick her finger down your throat to make room "in case you want dessert"
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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.
They are required to allow you to sign up with another LONG-DISTANCE provider, just like all of the telcos. They are NOT required to allow you to use another local provider, especially since they will tend to be the only ones operating in a region. The only change to this is if they don't have ownership of the physical cable, but that only happens in MDU's.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
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!
Your analogy is invalid. In the restaurant scenario, the waitress is the only one serving your needs, and thus it is appropriate that she should be able to help you out. You don't have to worry about twenty waiters and waitresses all bouncing over each other, interrupting your dinner, trying to sell you this, that, and the other thing. And if you tell them to go away, they will. And if you leave, they won't follow you.
It's greed, plain and simple.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Again, yes. Like I said, I can't find every single company, evaluate all their products and services, weed out the ones that don't have anything at all to do with me and then try to figure out which one is the best. It is up to companies to take advantage of every resource they have to best serve me.
If a company has a product or service that matches my "profile" then they should let me know. The alternative of course is that they don't let me know and I don't know that it exists and I'm not able to improve my quality of life. Like I said, I don't have time to figure what every single product and service in the world has to offer. Or the company calls indiscriminately offers their product or service to everyone regardless of interest. Do you know how much I'd hate that? Look, if I just replaced my windows, then don't bother calling me, I'm not going to replace them again. On the other hand, if I haven't replaced my windows for 10 years, then maybe it's time to let me know what services you offer.
I think more companies should be doing that. In fact, I think in the future there well be a company that keeps "consumer profiles" on everyone. If a company has a product or service that they want to offer, they match it to those consumers who are interested in it and let them know.
It's obvious that everyone who is upset in this thread has no concept of marketing. Marketing is beautiful and unfortunetaly not used to its fullest potential. I think that's a shame.
-BrentActually, I had a similar situation....Verizon want a 75$ advance on the first bill and a 50$ deposit that they would keep for a year and NOT automatically send it back to me at the end of that year. When I asked about this, the rep said it was 'a state law', which immediately set off red flags.
I let the rep set up the order, and proceeded to ask my friends and coworkers if they ever heard anything like this. Of course no one had, so a few days later, I ordered service through thier website and called to confirm the order with a different rep. Everything was set to go, with no deposit or advance required.
The moral of this story is that while these companies are huge and monolithic, there is also the weak underside of beauracracy and miscommunication that we can take advantage of.
This doesn't excuse such behavior on the part of Verizon, however.
when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
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.
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."
To use cell phone service for an example: if demographic evidence from your calling record points out to marketing weasels that you could really use a new cell phone, do you think that only the best provider for your needs is going to be knocking on your door? Sure they will. But so will every one of their competitors. Companies are in business to make a profit. They don't want you to have the best service. They want you to have their service. The marketing department from Verizon has no interest in you finding the best deal for you--not if it means you go with Cingular. You will be inundated, and must now spend time trying to decipher plans from the numerous (and often contradictory) pamphlets. [Yes, we did this recently. It sucked.]
Marketing could be useful, but not the way it's commonly done. Say there was another company, for example, that provided (for a modest sum) research and recommendations based on your demographic profile. THAT would be useful, perhaps. That company would already have your business--to keep it, they need to find you the best deals on other things (phones, groceries, ISP, oil changes, magazines, etc.), so they are motivated to really help you.
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 ?
No, they should construct laws around what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, right and wrong gradiate into each other, and there is no clear distinction. And remember, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
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
Well, of course. Each company tries to compell you with their best offer. That's the point. And trust me, that's a lot easier then comparing 10 plans for 7 different companies for a new cell phone.
-Brenthmm.... Funny, I should ask my lawyer, priest, doctor to start pitching around my information to serve me better with crap I don't ask for. That would be responsible of them. No, business want to make money, this has nothing to do with serving anybody better. They only want to serve themselve at your cost.
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.
No, they are going to sell it, not offer you better service plans. The only time they'll offer you a cheaper service plan is when you are with a competitor, not with them. There's no incentive to make you pay less money to them if they already have you. Case in point, call a credit card company and threaten to drop them, if you are a decent customer suddenly they'll offer you a better interest rate than you had before. They don't go out of their way for this type of thing, by themselves.
I don't have the time to check out every possible scenario available with every company out there. It's their job to take the data they have and then present me with their best offers.
That's your fault, but Ignorance is bliss. I pity you, if you believe this. You are an ignorant fool consumer that believes that the company will provide you with an unbiased picture of their and the competitors. If this was the case, I'd still be using IE with ten million pop-ups, instead of Mozilla. My business would be on Microbloat Windoze upgrade treadmill, along with hardware upgrades every two years, instead of that "user unfriendly, hard to learn, non-compatible" linux. And I would be buying the Windows Office suite, whose CD costs more than it's weight in gold instead of using the "only 99.5% perfect" Open Office.
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
I don't want to have to say no, infact I don't want to have to say anything at all, leave me alone, I want to be the one starting the business transaction. Leave me alone, unless there is something wrong with my account. Don't deluge me and waste my time with crappy offers. Don't send me junkmail, unless your willing to pay my entire trash pick-up bill. Don't call me, unless you want to pay for a $120 an hour consulting fee. Don't serve me better, serve me what I ask for.
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.
I don't get it. You're still going to have to compare them all. From the company's perspective, the "best" plan is the most expensive--are you going to take their word for it?
Better yet, when you receive a call from an inmate, most prison phone systems will spout out something like "This call is from a correctional facility." Pretty funny when you're shooting the breeze with a friend "on the inside."
Uh, where's the line there? If I glimpse
into your house while delivering pizza
and speak about that to everyone, am I
violating your right to privacy or exercising
free speech?
Considered harmful.
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.
You may be right, but if you are then it is a very ineffective clause. Hotmail gets lots and _lots_ of spam (unusable, really) and Microsoft does very little to curb the problem. Their spam filter is really bad. Yahoo's in comparison is much more effective.
One of the big offenders are those sites where they have jokes and funny pictures you can send to your friends. The whole purpose is to harvest your address in most cases, but try to tell that to your well-meaning friends who want to send you a laugh or two.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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.
It's only the same as the argument people religiously make about not wanting cookies on their machine. Cookies are used almost exclusively by advertisers to better target ads, but many people still insist on disabling them for 'privacy' reasons. Not my opinion though.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
...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...
Oh, the reason we have bad laws is because we have bad citizens. It's just as hard to get a law repealed as it is to make a new law (as it should be). The reason the US has so much bad legislation is that the vast majority of Americans don't care about their personal freedoms. They don't realize when they've been robbbed. That's not going to get better any time soon. It might take something as invasive as a stamp tax to get them to wake up.
But unfortunately, our politicians are as smart as our direct marketters. They know that if we are *aware* of how we're being taxed, then we'd be much more upset. So taxes are included in the price of cigarettes. Included in the price of gas. Included in your cable bill. You are never asked about a million things, so you don't realize you've lost the ability to choose.
Our drug laws, DMCA, CSEA, etc. will all go away if and only if the mainstream gets angry about them. I just don't see that happening. Perhaps if we had a more conservative (that is, stricter interpretation of the constitution, not politically conservative necessarily) supreme court, then we might be able to shortcut such an awakening.
Alex de Tocqueville (sp?) felt that we didn't have enough checks to prevent a tyranny of the majority. I'm not sure that he expected that tyranny to be due to apathy, rather than antagonism, but here we are. He was right.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Oh. Crap. You're totally right, I didn't mean that prisoners shouldn't be tapped. I'm just nutty about the fact that Brits don't mind being videotaped in public. Sure, video in public, but then if you use that video as evidence against someone, you better show that you use *all* that video against *everyone* suspicious. Which of course they cannot. So they're just trawling. Unequal protection under the law. Dunno if that's illegal in Britain, but it should be.
Anyway. I keep finding myself talking like a libertarian. I'm not a big-L Libertarian. I'm a liberal. I just believe in limited, targetted gov't programs, rather than the authoritarian corporate socialist crap we get from the Reps and the Dems. I'll sit down now.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
But if one person hires a lawyer who is better than the other's lawyer, that's 'unequal protection under the law'. The street cameras are there for the prosecution to build up as much evidence in cases where they may want to prosecute. I don't think that's a crime.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.