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.
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.
Welcome to the information age. The question is no longer whether you are being served, but to whom.
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
Can you hear me now? Good! Now GO TO HELL!
Duffman can never die! Only the actors who play him!
According to the Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, they have the same rights as individuals.
This is when the U.S. began its slide from a representative republic towards a corporate plutocracy.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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
You certainly may, under certain loopholes.
For example, if you have a hotmail account and have unticked every box, to disallow them selling your email address/info/receiving spam - they won't reveal your email address
But they do sell the email address of every single person you email
Try this simple experiment. Sign up for an email address from anywhere else - somewhere you know is relatively spam-free. Check it for a month or two, and notice there is no spam. Send some emails to it from your own isp, from other relatively-spam-free accounts. Then send *one* email to it from a hotmail account. You then find you will be inundated with penis enlarging spams, university diplomas for free, and viagra.
The system doesn't work both ways. Anyone emailing TO you is giving out your email address to the companies handling those addresses, and they are NOT covered by opt-in, opt-out or opt-anything laws.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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.
"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."
OK, I agree with your thought - You seem to be using the "refuse" method in this case - I prefer "organize." What I do, and I invite you and all others reading this to join in - is share a card. I started one of those "club cards" with Safeway about a year ago and have since shared it with as many people as possible.
To my knowledge there are probably 12 or so households using this card, and probably more since many of my firends who use it also encourage others to share it. The wya I see it, this eliminates the tracking element of the card while avoiding the punishment of higher prices for not using the card.
So, I invite you and any other Slashdotters who shop at Safeway to use my card. Obviously they aren't going to give us enough copies of the same card to each carry one, so you need to enter it by phone number. The number I use is: 510-843-7226
It's easily remembered since it spells out 510 THE SCAM.
This is not my phone number, last I checked it was an unused number, but either way, I'd appreciate it if the current owners of the number didn't receive any silly prank phone calls as a result of this posting.
Thanks,
Russ
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Well, actually that case only applied the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to corporations.
The completely odd thing is that corporations are undisputably property, which means that if they have the full rights given to a "person" under the Constitution, then corporations are an illegal form of slavery.
I also wonder if corporate personhood could be used to declare tax laws illegal. There is clearly a discrimination between people and corporations. Does this violate the equal protection clause?
Something inside of me wants to start killing the people responsible for the way things are getting, but I don't know who to blame and I don't know what would help. All I know is that something needs to be done before it gets much worse and I...
I don't even know. Somewhere along the line the American Dream became the American Nightamre. Growing up, I used to hope I'd be able to live better than my parents; these days I just hope I'll be able to pay back my student loans. Yet still, at every corner somebody is trying to sell me something and somebody else is making money by telling them about my cock size so that they know how to actually get me to buy it.
My ancestors came here looking for streets of gold & rivers of cream; a chance at a fresh start; the land of Golden Opportunity. I look arround me and I see the land of greed, where I'm stuck paying for the mistakes of those that came before me, of living my life so that Corporations can thrive.
At least the French knew who to execute when they had their revolution.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.