VoIP Terms of Service May Surprise You

rabtech writes "If you are thinking of ditching a land-line for a VOIP provider such as Vonage or Net2Phone, you might want to think again. Software "End User license Agreements" have gotten a lot of attention in the past over their onerous and restrictive terms, but who would expect such things from your phone company? The prime example is Vonage, which states among other things that 'If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding.'" (Read more below.)

"Don't forget the obligatory 'we can change these terms of service whenever we like and they become effective immediately when posted to our website.' Read for yourself here(1), here(2), and here(3). I won't put up with this kind of thing in my software and I certainly won't put up with it from my phone company!"

Comments

Privacy etc.

[onree]

This -- as well as the potential long-term storage of all content that passes through Vonage's network -- is why I think it's crazy people are so gung-ho about unregulated 'phone' service. Just one more sacrificial lamb to the information economy.

Re:Privacy etc.

[TheGax]

Yeah. Because it's feasible for Vonage (or any other VoIP provider) to store complete telephone calls for the long term.
Tin foil hats anyone....

Re:Privacy etc.

[sploo22]

I thought the whole point of using Vonage et al. was that you could connect to normal phones. Obviously they won't be able to get around whatever scrambling you come up with, so there's no point in signing up in the first place. Or is there some telephone scrambling standard I've never heard of?

Re:Privacy etc.

[black mariah]

Do you seriously think that a private company is going to WASTE $1.25 million PER DAY on logging your calls? This is tinfoil of the highest order, and more importantly it's really fucking bad business practice. I doubt even MS would dump half a billion a year into something so goddamned stupid.

Re:Privacy etc.

[Craig Ringer]

"Storage is somewhere around a buck a gig"

Hmm. I'd have to take issue with that. In small, independent, non-redundant systems storage might be as little as $1/GB.

If you're building a large SAN or storage farm, there won't be a "little" overhead. Rather, the chances are the actual storage cost will be a small part of the overall costs of space, power, maintainance, administration, monitoring, legal compliance and BACKUPS.

I'd be gobsmacked if it was less than $5/GB to start out with a storage farm (and unsurprised if it was ten times that), and I couldn't give you a running cost per GB but I wouldn't be surprised if it was several bucks per year.

Even our storage server at work, which only has 830GB of usable storage (1.7TB raw storage) cost a lot more than a buck a gig. Closer to $10/GB, in fact. Admittedly we didn't buy well and didn't buy at a good time, but even so that's for slow, cheap storage.

Looking at, say, raw 2TB NAS devices advertised, they seem to go for between US$6000 and US$10000 - and that's initial purchase of a standalone device, not counting any of the above costs. That's also an SATA based unit, and most won't really fit well in large, complex storage networks.

If you start talking SAN gear, well ... you'd need to put the price in $/GB to stop your eyes falling out ;-)

Here's a link that might be interesting: SAN Case study:

[Anders Lofgren, senior industry analyst at Forrester Research Inc] said high-end storage implementations cost on average about $50 per gigabyte, or $50,000 per TB. But he cautioned that such numbers don't reflect the redundancy most users require and other variables like the number of ports and servers in the mix. Then there's the requirement for management software, which will also increase the price, Lofgren said.

Even if we allow for the questionable wisdom of analysts, I think the quoted article is fairly belivable. It also reflects my extrapolation of my own experience of storage management.

I'm not claiming that your scenario is impossible (though I think you've totally neglected the processing costs and need for pre-downprocessing temporary storage of all that audio), just that it'd cost a LOT more than you describe.

Re:Privacy etc.

[Malor]

You are correct in pretty much everything you say -- these things did cross my mind while I was posting (mostly that management is expensive), but it depends on what they want. If the idea is to just archive everything and then pull back specific records on people with a search warrant, that's simpler than trying to truly process and search all that data.

What prompted my post was the great(-great?) grandparent post about tinfoil hats. This wasn't meant as an exhaustive study, just an observation that it's quite doable, although expensive, with today's technology, and it's only going to get cheaper. And the raw storage would be substantially less than I was claiming... I had misremembered the data rate for compressed voice streams. 8Kbytes is uncompressed, raw data -- with a good, lossless codec, it could be at least shrunk in half. And if we're willing to accept lossy compression, cut by 90%.

10/1 compression would let Vonage archive 100,000 calls a day for 10 days and comfortably fit it on a hard drive... hell, with the newest 400gb drives, they could probably put a whole month on one drive. Yes, it's going to cost them more than the raw $300 or so for the drive. There are many other costs than just the storage medium. But what I'm trying to point out is that it's not just doable, it's even pretty cheap from a individual provider's standpoint.

With the budgets that projects like Echelon have, I believe that archiving all voice communication anywhere on the planet will be an achievable goal within five years. Expensive, but doable.

Worth thinking about.

Sorry folks

[oasis3582]

Sorry people, but no one is making you sign up for these services. Don't like that Gmail scans your inbox for advertising purposes? Don't bitch...just don't sign up. If it strikes a nerve with enough people that actually bother to read the ToS, then they will be forced to revise them. VoIP providers are no exception.

Re:Sorry folks

[Zebbers]

Jesus christ. You know. Free market does not always work. Sometimes people do need to be protected from massive corporations.

This isn't email- inherently insecure. This is voice communications. Voice communications that recently began the trek to being legislated as such...with 911, taxes, etc.

Wake up and smell the coffee. There are plenty of places people would like to "take a stand" but it's kind of hard to take a stand against million dollar corporations who really don't give a shit. We need to collectively stand up and say(legislate) you can't do this and must do this....because if we DONT, they WONT. It's that simple. Corporations do not care about people.

Re:Sorry folks

[jkrise]

"Sometimes people do need to be protected from massive corporations."

There are other massive corporations waiting to prvide such services!

Actually, people need to be protected from other people - more harm is caused by a few rich idiotic customers than lousy products.

-

Re:Sorry folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sure. I can select a VoIP-provider with sensible ToS, but what happens when I call a friend or corporation which uses one of the bad VoIP-providers?

Re:Sorry folks

[rebel47]

Corporations don't care about people and neither do politicians. All politicians care about is: 1. Getting elected, and 2. Getting re-elected.

Re:Sorry folks

[maximilln]

You know. Free market does not always work. Sometimes people do need to be protected from massive corporations

Let's work hard to dispel another illusion. We do _NOT_ need to be protected from massive corporations. What we need is for our politicians to _STOP_ protecting big corporations from us.

A technical difference of words, maybe, but it illustrates the fact that we do not function in a free market in the US. We have thousands and thousands of rules and regulations on our free market and all of those rules and regulations require a financial budget and a legal team to enforce. Our free market is thus skewed in favor of large corporations and against the interest of the individual citizens.

We need to collectively stand up and say(legislate) you can't do this and must do this

What we need is to _REMOVE_ all the protecting legislation which is supposed to protect us but, because of monetary fact, only protects corporations.

Re:Sorry folks

[YouHaveSnail]

We do _NOT_ need to be protected from massive corporations. What we need is for our politicians to _STOP_ protecting big corporations from us.

That's an interesting viewpoint. I'd agree with it to an extent, but I also think that, for example, worker safety laws are pretty damn important. Businesses will intimidate and take advantage of employees and customers if there aren't consequences to those actions.

I heard an interesting report about the towing industry just last night. Apparently, in the Baltimore/Washington DC area, there have been a number of cases where tow truck drivers have towed cars that were parked perfectly legally, kept the cars for months before telling the owners where their cars are, and then demanding that the owners pay "storage fees" if they want their cars back. The industry is essentially unregulated. A few years ago, the towing industry convinced Congress to pass a law giving exclusive authority over the industry to the federal government. And then, it convinced Congress to pass another law which eliminated the federal agency which regulates towing! You've got to hand it to them for shrewdness, but it's not a good situation.

The above could be construed to either affirm or refute your point. On the one hand, the clear problem is that Congress passed two bad laws in a row (probably not a record). On the other hand, there are clearly abuses in the towing industry, and there needs to be some sort of regulation, even if that only means giving states the right to say that it's illegal for tow truck drivers to steal cars.

Re:Sorry folks

[Rich0]

Workman's compensations laws are skewed in favor of the worker - that is, any injury suffered on the job is covered, regardless of whether there was any negligence on the part of the employer. If you deliberately hit yourself in the face with a hammer while at work, your company is still responsible.

The alternative is that the worker has to prove that it was the employer's fault.

I've heard numerous stories about employers who mandate the use of safety precautions, but fire anybody who actually follows them because it lowers their productivity. Of course, they don't make it a clear 1 to 1 link - they just fire the slowest person every week and the employees get the picture. They of course don't enforce the must-use-safety-equipment rule.

Then when somebody saws a finger off, the employer screams "Not our fault! We provided plate armor finger protectors and required their use - the employee wasn't following the safety rules. Now, if you did a surprise inspection, you'll find that none of the employees follow the rules - because they don't want to starve.

The more regulations you have, the more corporations' economies of scale give them an advantage over smaller competitors.

You're arguing that if the regulations were removed, then new sawing industries would form owned by mom and pop companies who don't ask their workers to risk sawing off fingers, and then the exploited workers I alluded to above would just switch jobs.

That won't work. If you deregulate, the economy of scale still exists. The big industry would simply lower prices more and still make the same profit. The start-up would still have trouble.

Start-ups tend to have more lax safety anyway - simply because they don't have anything worth suing over. A big company tries to protect itself from safety lawsuits since a lawsuit could cost them hundreds of millions. The mom and pop store down the street doesn't have all that much to lose in comparison.

If an employee hits themselves in the face with a hammer due to anything other than an attempt at suicide chances are that the employer did something wrong. Maybe they don't require sufficient safety gear, maybe they don't enforce the use of safety gear. Maybe they have the wrong kinds of hammers. Maybe their production quotas are so high that employees feel like they have to run around swinging hammers in the air just to keep their jobs.

The employer controls the work environment - not the employee. The employer consequently must be held accountable for the safety of that environment. You can bet that the employer has no trouble controlling the environment in ways that maximize productivity (making sure employees are clocked out on breaks, that they can't sneak out of work, that their production is measured, that they don't get personal calls on the job, etc.). They could just as easily walk around and fire anybody not wearing their safety gear. The reason that they don't is because they don't want them to - they'd rather have the safety rules to protect them from the lawyers while not paying any productivity penalties associated with following them...

That's to be expected, isn't it?

[Jorgensen]

Isn't this just a result of:

(a) Companies trying to cover their own back: Litigation is best avoided, so any responsibility will be pushed towards the customer - or at least away from the company.

(b) Profit: If they can "sneak in" terms that allow them to profit from *your* details, then they will try. Or at least, they don't want to be in a situation where they *cannot* do so, so they are better off asking for your concent first.

(c) Law Enforcement Agencies: Even if the agencies do not explicitly ask the providers for ease of tapping (perhaps they do? I dunno), they still think of voip as a telephone alternative, hence the same rules apply.

Really, this isn't so different from the EULAs from email providers, is it?

After all, if you want to keep things secret, ENCRYPT THEM : http://www.gnupg.org

Just my 2p...

Shouldn't hurt future sales too much

[tniedosi]

Fact of the matter is, nobody except people like us really care to even know about this. I don't know a single non dork who actually reads anything when installing new software. In fact when one of my friends wanted to install windows 2000, (who knows why) the installer told him they currently had no driver for his modem and he installed anyway! If voip ever reaches far enough beyond the realm of computer dorks, this probably will go unnoticed.

Because of this I can't really say that I blame companies like vonage for putting stuff like that in their end user. No one will read it, so the public won't care, and they'll look like good little boys to the government. Not half a bad idea if the time ever comes that we decide phase in a new phone architecture. All in all, I think this is a very good strategic move, but god what a bunch of assholes.

Patriot Act

[SarcasticTester]

I agree these practices are not quite nice, but come on, look at the EULA you sign with just about any kind of service provider online. But did any of you ever stop to think about the difference between having and not having this kind of agreement?? Cause if you ask me, it doesn't make a difference. Have a look at the Patriot Act, that basically states that the US government doesn't care about your rights, they reserver the right to shove just about anyhing up your behind without giving you any notice at all!

Re:Money or privacy?

[black mariah]

Shut up, parrot. This doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with liberty. It has to do with the exact same shit that phone companies have been doing for years. If they believe you are using their phone lines for illegal means, they will report you. It's as simple as that. It's quite simple, really. Don't do illegal shit over Vonage wires.

The above restrictions

[philbert26]

From the Vonage website:

1.3.1 Prohibited Uses You agree to use the Service and Device only for lawful purposes. This means that you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment the transmission, receipt or possession of such communication or material (i) would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or (ii) encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law....If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions etc etc.

So not only do you have to avoid criminal actions, you also have to avoid civil liability. And Vonage can, of course, use their "sole discretion" to decide what is and is not illegal / slanderous / whatever.

People will call this a tinfoil hat case, because in practice, Vonage will not have the resources to spy on people and turn them in if they say something bad. But that sounds very much like security through obscurity. The government and corporations are building a society where privacy can be violated at will. Sure, 99% of people will be unaffected, but then most Soviets weren't picked up by the KGB, and most Iraqis weren't arrested by Saddam Hussein's mob. The "if you've nothing to hid, you've nothing to fear" argument carries much weight with the general public -- as if no innocent people have ever been harmed by their government!

Re:What do you expect??

[base3]

If a Vonage conversation trapped a paedophile who was grooming children, that's a pretty darn good argument for handing over the evidence. Maybe [the tapping] not legal in some countries, but what about others?

Of course! Think of the children! I expect politicians to trot this out every time they're eroding our rights. I fear for the Republic when ordinary citizens start doing so.

I am not concerned

[sckeener]

I agree the terms sound annoying, but you can understand why they did it.
The Department of Justice would be all over Vonage if VoIP services were being used by criminals or even worse by 'terrorists.'

It wasn't until recently that the fcc ruled VoIP must be tappable. Give them some more time. They might change their TOS in light of this FCC ruling.

Re:BT

[arivanov]

That is correct. But phone companies are considered a utility and are regulated. So they cannot just change their contracts overnight. They have to clear any changes (often even price changes) with the relevant regulator. This is not the case as far as VOIP providers are concerned and will continue not to be the case until they are exempt from the normal telecommunication regulatory regime. So this VONAGE behavior is a direct consequence of it not having to concent to telecoms regulations which is something which 80%+ of the slashdot crowd supports. And now they scream murder... Go figure...

Re:legality

[Chess_the_cat]

Do you really think these companies have the time to keep up with monitoring your conversations and such when they barely stay afloat with user demand?

No, but I'm sure there are those who have the time to make false complaints against you thereby causing your telco to zip up your phone convo's and forward them to the FBI.

Re:What do you expect??

[Elsebet]

But they've got an even better one waiting, that you just stepped into... What would you do about the problem of paedophiles on the internet? The silence and the subsequent flapping whilst you think of a solution is more ammunition for their argument.

Ever think parents should start being responsible for their kids 24/7 instead of just letting them IM, e-mail, or meet Joe Pedophile? Nah that's too easy, let's invade everyone's privacy instead.

Re:legality

[linuxtelephony]

I am sick of hearing people say "just don't do anything illegal" or "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care".

Just because something is legal today doesn't mean that it will be legal tomorrow. So, today they record and monitor voice and data traffic "for our safety". Tomorrow, suppose it is illegal to read something like slashdot, or that it becomes illegal to say certain words. The most likely example is that fair use rights will be minimized until they are practically non-existant.

Yes, those are somewhat far-fetched examples, but I hope it gets the point across. Every day, it seems, new laws are passed. Some may be good, others, such as the DMCA, are much more questionable. Sure, today nothing you do is illegal, so of course you have nothing to hide. But, can you be sure that tomorrow won't come and new laws make you a criminal? At the current rate, eventually everyone will be a criminal to one degree or another.

The laws are so numerous and cover so many details that it sometimes becomes virtually impossible to follow all of them. Take for instance the roads in cities like San Francisco that ban vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVW. This includes just about all full size SUVs, not to mention the big pickup trucks. Most people would not realize the signs apply to their SUVs. They didn't set out with the intent to break the law, they were just driving down the street.

So, the next time someone says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care ...", think about it, and tell them why.

It's data mining, not monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to "monitor" your conversation right now, all they have to do is store it. Then in 5-10 years there will be CPU power and software to produce a searchable transcript of everything you ever said on the phone. Sliced and diced demographically, that data will be worth a fortune. If it can be done it will be done.

Re:legality

[hendridm]

It's not the feasibility that's as important as the precedent it sets. This is just one more chip off of our freedom. The more you allow you freedom to be taken away, the easier it is to take more, especially when they think you'll stand for it as long as you can get a good deal on long distance or save a nickel on a gallon of gas.

Re:I don't get it.

[MadHungarian1917]

Remember the 'Patriot' act was recently used to tap the comms of and then used to authorize a ARMED raid against some kid who ran a SG-1 fan website. Cant recall the kid's name at the moment early onset of Alzheimers I guess.

Somehow this does not seem like terrorism to me... Which is the trouble with laws like the patriot act they WILL be abused by people who are only interested in power

Re:BT

[gcaseye6677]

But the flip side to this situation is that it is a lot easier to change VOIP providers than to change your POTS service, if you can change it at all. Extreme regulation was needed when the phone company was the only provider in town, but if you can change VOIP providers fairly easily, the competition aspect will prevent companies from angering their customers with unreasonable policies and service.

Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better?

[drooling-dog]

A more compelling argument against the "nothing to hide" idiots is that they assume that all civil authorities are 100% honest, diligent, and trustworthy public servants, and could never have any agenda other than the dispassionate enforcement of the law. Unfortunately, they are completely doe-eyed about this point.

The reason why the U.S. Constitution once protected citizens from unlimited government power is that such power can and will be abused. When unlimited power can be abused, you are no longer secure in your liberty regardless of whether you diligently abide by the law or not. Legal innocence does not protect you, because all it takes for you to get into trouble is to be in the wrong person's way. Hey, maybe a friend of the local police chief wants to buy your house, or maybe your company is bidding against one in which a powerful official has a financial interest. That's the way corruption works.

The Bush administration claims the right to hold anyone they want indefinitely and incommunicado without charge or recourse, arguing that this way they'll be better able to protect us against "terrorists". Most Americans seem willing to grant them these powers. The truth, however, is that they need them in order to avoid accountability, conceal their own failures, and, inevitably, to achieve ulterior goals that have nothing to do with terrorism. Otherwise, wouldn't they just relish the opportunity to bring the "evil-doers" to justice in as public a forum as possible?

Re:Scary

[Rufus88]

"Random" phone calls are being monitored, using a monitoring system that is triggered by keywords, that are used during the phone conversation

Umm, if the "monitoring" is triggered by spoken keywords, then they must already be "monitoring" in order to detect the keywords.