Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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.
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.
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...
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!
We're all out there, somewhere, waiting to happen.
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!
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.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
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...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
Sacré-bleu! Where is me mama?
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".
...", think about it, and tell them why.
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
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley