Slashdot Mirror
SBC-Yahoo Partnership Cuts User Privacy
simeonbeta2 writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is running a story about Pac Bell's dsl partnership with Yahoo. Initially touted as a new service, Pac Bell is apparently now mailing existing dsl customers to urge them to install additional client software that will enable 'incredible new features and services'. While SBC's privacy policy is not excessively intrusive, use of the new software is covered by Yahoo's privacy policy, which is just a bit more Orwellian." The story's a little overblown - Yahoo's privacy policy reads that way because they offer financial services and the like, where they may well need financial information from you to provide the service. The reporter needed to investigate this new software DSL users are being asked to install, and find out what sort of user tracking it enables.
Big companies still don't care about your rights!
Yawn.
when Prodigy was bought out by SBC. They went on and on about no changes, same service, etc. Then I started getting almost weekly mails with cd's in nice bright colorful cases urging me to install my new SBC Yahoo! Dial software to enable new worlds of features! Of course I didn't because I just kept my Prodigy account around for the old email address and never dialed in, so what was the point of installing new software?
;) There's something to be said for smaller ISP's...
Finally they started bombarding me with emails that extolled the virtues of the new software. My guess is when you install it then it checks you off on the master list on the server that you installed it, nevermind if you never needed to or didn't care at all. Finally after trying to register on the web site and failing miserably, I just called and cancelled the account. And ya know what? My spam amount is down 95% since then
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
In a novel by John D. MacDonald, a condominium buyer is told by the sales agent that the long fine-print contract he's signing is "a formality." Later, when the buyer discovers all sorts of problems with the condo and the agent is stonewalling him on getting them fixed, the agent says "After all, it says in the contract you signed that..."
The buyer protests "But you said that was just a formality." The agent says "That's right--it is a formal, binding legal contract enforceable in a court of law."
In real life, when it is honestly a negotiating situation, when I see things I really don't like in contracts I test them. "Can I strike this out?" "Can I write here, 'I have sixty-day return privileges and ask you to initial it?'" The results are very unpredictable. When the clause really IS just boilerplate that they don't actually plan to use, very often they will be perfectly agreeable, and you can get the verbal understanding down on paper. But occasionally, they'll freak out--that clause is in there for a reason and they've been ordered not to let anyone mess with it.
Unfortunately, none of this shrink-wrap and click-through stuff is a situation where you really have any power or any ability to negotiate. You can't strike out clauses and see if they'll agree to accept them.
Nevertheless, it's a very good idea to assume that contracts really do mean what they say and that all the fine print and boilerplate really might become operative someday.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Stealing is bad. That's good to know.
Is installing a program on more than one computer stealing? Is installing bitkeeper and contributing to cvs without paying $5000 stealing? Is installing a program on a multi-processor box without paying for the multi-processor version stealing? Is using frontpage to make an anti-Microsoft web site stealing?
Existing law makes no provisions for a seller to dictate to a buyer what he may or may not use a product for.
But a EULA does. And if a EULA is equivalent to a binding contract, then it can be enforced as a contract can be.
Twenty years ago no one would ever have considered a EULA the same as a contract--no one signs it, there is no proof of who exactly agrees to it. But no one should underestimate the power of established tradition. As EULA's become more and more ubiquitous, they will become more and more accepted by the legal community. And eventually and gradually, without a single legislature passing any law on the matter, the courts will rule by precedent and make EULA's legally binding. And then you can trust that the consequences of forcing average consumers to agree to long and complex legal documents whenever they want to buy a common consumer good will be felt. The law will intrude even deeper into people's everyday lives, making everyone less free. No, people won't read them more carefully--that's impossible anyway, the EULA's necessary to install something as common as Windows with the necessary updates already includes more pages than the Bible. People won't choose to live as hermits in the woods, either--rather they will simply bend their backs and bear the burdens of a few more laws.
I recently switched over to Yahoo!/SBC DSL thinking it would be neat to have access to the Yahoo! features. I had a problem with the install (after agreeing to the Orwellian user agreement) and decided to call tech support. A fellow named O'Brien answered. It started out friendly and he guided me through setting up online Solitaire, but things rapidly deteriorated. He began to question me about my sexuality - pointed questions that were quite disturbing. I tried to deflect them and get back to my Yahoo! DSL problems but he wouldn't let up. Finally I told him that he was behaving inappropriately and I wanted to talk to his manager. He called me a "thought criminal" and said I was dressing too flamboyantly. He said he was watching me through my webcam (apparently I agreed to this in the Orwellian user agreement) and to remain seated, as he was dispatching a team of Yahooligans to begin my re-education. I sit here paralyzed with fear, knowing that all that once was is no more. Pray for me.
it's a very good idea to assume that contracts really do mean what they say
This should be hammered into every person - there is no such thing as "boilerplate" in a contract. There is a REASON for EVERY SINGLE WORD (unless the attorney who prepared it is guilty of malpractice) It doesn't "become operative someday" - it is in force the second you agree to it. You may not understand the purpose of all the text in the contract, but the attorneys who prepared it do, and will enforce it if you arouse their ire.
> Your email address will stay the same.
>Your monthly price will stay the same.**
>Your billing method will stay the same.
> Your high speed DSL Internet connection will stay the same.
"**"? Why did I just instinctively reach for my wallet?
>[...]With SBC Yahoo! DSL, you are in control. You have the power to choose which software to download based on the features you want: ***
"***"? ...and my firewall? :-)
Interestingly enough, just a few weeks ago, I got a snail mailing regarding an opportunity to opt out of SBC's sell^H^H^Hharing of my CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information) data.
Unless I opted out, SBC promised that it would dutifully use the record of every phone number I dialled to figure out what sorts of crap^H^H^H^Hexciting products and services I might be interested in.
I wondered how the fuck a phone company could use that, and then I realized that if SBC is partnering up with Yahoo in order to provide DSL, that going through every phone user's CPNI records to target ad campaigns to users of competing (dial-up) ISPs would be a perfect application of this.
After all, with CPNI data, SBC could easily send "u wan2 swtch frm AOL" mailings to AOL users, "Tired of seeing Sky Dayton buggering the rotting corpse of Mindspring/Netcom every day?" mailings to Earthlink users of Mindspring or Netcom POPs, and "Why are you still with these small-timers" to users of independent/local ISPs.
Rant: I hate telcos. I hate marketroids. They seem to feed off each other, in an evil, sickening way that makes spammers seem honest by comparison.
At any rate, if you do business with SBC, I'd strongly recommend that you opt-out of having your calling records used for marketing purposes. (You'll need a copy of your phone bill to use that link. A few days later, you'll get a receipt in the snail-mail confirming your opt-out. No word on how long it lasts, but knowing the DMA, you'll probably have to jump through the hoop on at least an annual basis. )
"...its up to the users of the dsl service...[]...to read the policies of the company."
Uh, not exactly. I have had SBC DSL for just over a year now, previously it was speakeasy - before that northpoint/covad.
I moved to PacBell DSL when they installed a CO across the street from my house, and they offered higher speeds off their new equipment than whatever speakeasy DSL equipment my line was previously provisioned on....
anyway - I also happen to have and use a yahoo email account. I have had this email account since 1996 or 1997.
I am now seeing a redirection to a FULL SCREEN advertisment from SBC & Yahoo when I log into my account from my home machine.
Basically they check the IP thats logging into the yahoo account - and if its an SBC provisioned IP - they first redirect you to this AD. It sucks.
Yes you can close the AD pretty quickly, but its still bugs me for many many reasons here are some:
1) I never signed up for Yahoo/SBC DSL. So I dont want the ads that people who signed up for this package are subjected to. *Especially* since they signed up at a lower rate than I pay because of the promotion. If they are going to show me these ADs I should pay the same as the Yahoo/SBC DSL subscribers.
2) My account on both SBC/PacBell DSL and Yahoo Mail PREDATES any of these policies - and in some cases predates the *existance* of SBC-PacBell as a merged company. I agreed to certain things when i signed up years ago for Yahoo, but apparently since the laws are so fucked up - if you agree to a contract these days - you also agree that the other party can make any changes, any time for any reason to any part of the contract you agree to - and you are not required to re-examine any terms and re-agree to anything. That's bull shit.
3) There is no switch for me to turn this option off - I wasnt asked if I wanted it - I cant "opt-out". The way I feel is that I should show up to their offices and hit them in the face with a shovel. They didnt opt-out of the shovel in the face program I run.
4) It is pretty much fact that this type of forced marketing doesnt work too well. Show me any users who actually read the ad - and show me the click-through numbers on these ads. Show me the *actual* conversion ratio. I'd bet its not even enough to make the whole effort worth while.
Basically, I would like to see the Yahoo agreement I entered into way back in 1997. I also want to see the SBC agreement I entered from last year - and I want to see if they allow for this sort of thing. I doubt that in '97 the agreement I actually clicked "I Agree" on says that I agree to bend over and get fucked in the ass by any affilate Yahoo ever decides to every do any sort of marketing arangement with.
so its not as simple as saying "its up to the user to read the policies that they agree to with any company"