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.
I looked around for quite some time on a VoIP provider and eventually settled on callVantage. There are some annoying things (cannot run behind router, wants to be first machine in line, so I had to get a 2nd IP addy from the cable company) with using this, however, their ToS isn't as bad as most other VoIP providers. Plus, though they are a rather large phone company, they have pressure on them to make this work because of their regualer landline & corporate services. I'm sure they take liberties with this being unregulated, however, they will be more noticed and have more pressure should they screw up. So far so good, quality has been wonderful, hardly any cutout or breaky voices due to downloading a lot (slackware off bt). The modem they provide isn't half-bad, and I got to talk my wife into letting me get a 2nd DHCP address, which provides a few other advantages for me. Plus, its a good $30.00 cheaper then the local lec.
So don't do anything illegal. Be serious, look at any of the forums on http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/voip regarding VOIP. 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?
I'm glad that there are people out there willing to start a debate on what is acceptable or not in this regard.
What really bothers me is people who do not recognize that this is the cornerstone of democracy (a healthy debate).
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Internet phone systems, seen as the wave of the future in telecommunications, must be set up in such a way that conversations can be monitored by police and intelligence agencies, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said in a tentative ruling on Wednesday.
By a vote of 5-0, the FCC said "Voice over Internet Protocol," or VoIP, providers should be subject to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which ensures that law enforcers will be able to keep up with changing communications technologies.
The law does not apply to Internet-based communications but VoIP providers such as Vonage must comply because they are likely to replace much traditional phone service, the commission said.
The Justice Department, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have argued that they must be able to monitor suspicious calls no matter how they are made and have pushed the FCC to adopt rules so they will always have access.
Technology advocates have worried that the fast-growing service, which promises to slash costs by routing phone calls over the Internet, could be harmed by excessive regulation.
The ruling does not affect other pending regulatory questions surrounding VoIP service, such as how it should be taxed, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said.
"Our tentative conclusion, while correct, is expressly limited to the requirements of the CALEA statute and does not indicate a willingness on my part to find that VoIP services are telecommunications services," Powell said at a commission meeting.
Several commissioners said this attempt to avoid larger regulatory questions weakened the legal argument underpinning the ruling, though they all voted to support it.
"There are less roundabout ways to achieve this result than the collection of tentative conclusions we offer here, and there are better ways to build a system that will guarantee judicial approval," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat.
The ruling does not apply to "non-managed" VoIP services like Skype, which have more in common with file-trading networks like Kazaa than traditional phone networks.
Skype offers "peer to peer" software that allows users to talk directly with each other rather than going through pathways set up by the carrier.
Separately, the FCC ruled that commercial "push to talk" services offered by wireless providers like Nextel Communications Inc. would be subject to CALEA.
The ruling on "push to talk" services is final, but the FCC will accept further public comments before making its ruling on VoIP final.
The FCC has yet to determine how long VoIP carriers need to comply with wiretap laws, and whether outside companies can manage compliance for these carriers.
VoIP carriers offer subscribers a low monthly fee for nationwide calls and discount rates for international connections.
Major traditional carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Corp. have launched VoIP offerings to match services offered by independent start-ups like Vonage.
Research firm Gartner Inc. estimates that 17 percent of North American phone lines will be replaced with VoIP lines by 2008.
-- Reuters
[ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
Corporations have been writing licenses of this sort for a long time - some of the worst are the ones that come packaged with software or that are hidden in 1 pt. font on websites.
/. article on the subject.
They're a little dated, but for more information, check out these links at the Consumer Project on Technology:
UCITA
Questionable Licenses
And here's a link to an old
Slashdot | Questionable EULA's
I currently use Vonage, and I can tell you this. At $15 per month, I'm willing to give up a little to save money. Before Vonage I was paying $50+ a month for my local/long distance carrier. And that $50 only gave me a few added services. Now with Vonage I have every option service under the sun (three way calling, voicemail, caller id, etc etc.) I don't plan to do anything illegal, so if they share some info about me I'm not that worried. Then again, I wasn't aware that they had complete free reign over my informtion, so I do plan to write some letters asking them to change their policies. I think overall though, just like anything else, you have to weigh your own concerns over privacy vs cost and make a decision that works for you.
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...
http://www.btbroadbandvoice.com/ to be precise
VOIP is becoming a big business. If you don't like one provider, try a different one. NuFone is a good one. It works extremely well with Asterisk too.
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.
> i'd hat to see what British Telecom comes out with when this (eventually) hit's
> the UK.
Is that a tin-foil hat? Certainly sounds like one.
*ALL* phone companies will *always* work actively with the government. This is just them covering their back so you don't sue them if any legal action against you fails.
These pioneers exist on the forefront of legal boundaries. A few years ago there was debate about whether foreign countries selling goods over the internet were bound by laws at the point of purchase or the location of the vendor.
VOIP have the same problem of uncertain legal comeback. What happens if you're making a call to/through China, and Beijing wants to have a listen? A major international dispute could erupt, and these companies don't want to be caught in the middle. These laws haven't even solidied in any one country, let alone across borders
It's not that they want to be Big Brother, it's just if Uncle Sam comes asking, they've let you know that they could hand over the information.
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?
People who know how to construct tin foil hats should use encryption, plain and simple.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
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!
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
In other news, for those of us using Mac OS X and Safari-- remember, whenever they give you obnoxiously long terms of service to read, use the "Summarize" service.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
You may think this just means co-operation with the police/FBI/CIA/NSA/etc, but the language is much, much broader.
For instance "in its sole discretion believes" could mean literally anything. Belief means anything and nothing. Do you believe in WMD?
Maybe Vonage - without any evidence - believe you look at children "the wrong way". Who knows? The language is so broad that this easily fits.
Then the language doesn't mention (although the choice of words implies) that this is about law enforcement. Maybe you offend their code of ethics, perhaps by violating with their newly minted condition about lewdness, harsh language or unpatriotic language.
Remember this is about personal phone calls, not a public forum. You may want to whisper sweet nothings to your other half. The nothings, sweet or otherwise, get forwarded to Vonage's opinion of an "appropriate authority" - say the Senate Committee on Public Morals - and you have "consented" to this.
T&Cs like this are an open invitation to abuse by idiological extremists, and there are plenty of those about ATM.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
I totally agree with the parent regarding the recording aspect. It is my impression that this isn't any different than what is currently happening with land line phone companies though.
During a television interview with Patrick Norton on what used to be TechTV. The head of the NSA had revealed that following 9/11 various "Random" phone calls are being monitored, using a monitoring system that is triggered by keywords, that are used during the phone conversation.
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/
On my VoicePulse line I get:
- Unlimited calling anywhere in SE PA and SW NJ
- Voicemail
- Enhanced Caller ID (I can assign personalized names to incoming numbers)
- Call Hunting (send call to cell if I don't pick up at home)
- Multi-Ringing (ring home, cell, and work all at the same time)
- Anonymous Call Block
- Telemarketer Block
- Call Filters (send call from mom to cell, send call from Joe to work)
- Distinctive Ringing
- Call Forward
- Three way calling
- 200 minutes long distance
for $14.99 a month. No taxes or fees are added on top of that, either.
The closest Verizon gets to this is their Metro Unlimited service which is over $45 / mo and I don't get ANY of the cool features that I do with VoicePulse (Plus, my "unlimited calling area" is about half the size of VP's calling area). When I add the features I get with VP, I'm close to $60 / mo.
$60 is much greater than $15... on the order of $540 / year greater.
If you dont break the law, you have nothing to worry about.
I am sure that they do not sit and listen and record content of calls all day long. They do however drop in from time to time to examine quality and misuse (misuse being defined as anyone who knowing tries to circumvent restrictions or steals access). Phone companies already do the same thing and have done so for years. I know, I have worked for one.
This "news" is simply more propoganda created by the makers of tin foil. Damnit they must be rich.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
These are the 'restrictions' they're talking about. What they're saying here is that if you're using their equipment for criminal purposes, and if they know about it, they have the right to terminate your service, call the cops, and tell 'em what they know. I don't see how they have a lot of choice about this: if they did anything else, they'd open themselves up to all sorts of liability.
But it doesn't mean that they're going to monitor all your conversations or drop the hammer when you call your bookie. According to their privacy policy:
They also tell you in their privacy policy that they might use your data in ways you might not like: i.e. tell the cops who you are and where you live:
This should come as no surprise to anyone, and any phone company would do the same thing. But what the phone company can (and must) do is well established in both our culture and our laws. Vonage, which for many purposes would probably prefer not to be considered a phone company, is offering a relatively new kind of service, and they really need to make these things explicit.
There's a lot of pressure on the FCC right now to regulate VOIP providers and make them make their networks easily tappable by law enforcement agencies. That's not entirely unreasonable... you don't want drug dealers and terrorists to have an untappable, portable, fast, cheap communications system with fixed cost long distance to boot.
Our role as citizens that have some understanding of the tech involved is to make sure our representatives know that for tapping purposes, law enforcement should treat VOIP just like POTS service. Essentially, they should have to jump through exactly the same hoops in order to get permission to tap VOIP that they do to tap POTS or cell service.
I find the word 'authorized' odd. The previous clause said 'required'. As though they'll do it if they are allowed, not just when forced.