Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Wireless Opt-Out Plan For Customer Records
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that Verizon Wireless is planning to share its customers' calling records (called CPNI) with "our affiliates, agents and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries." The article explains that CPNI "includes the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and time spent on each call, among other data." Some subscribers, it's not known if it's all of them, received a letter in the mail giving them 30 days to opt out of this sharing by calling 1-800-333-9956. Skydeck, a mobile and wireless services company, seems to have been the first to call attention to the Verizon initiative on their blog; they also posted a scan of the letter (sideways PDF) from Verizon.
When I hear things like that I always wonder how they handle past customer data. Those folks are not being given any "opt out" provision. Same as when companies get bought or sold off for parts. Current customers of course are respected since they have value but past customers are only worth the data you can mine out of them.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Well, my 2-year contract ended last month; now's a good time to finally switch to AT&T and get that iPhone I've been eyeing...
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
I got one of those letters several weeks ago, and immediately called the 800-333-9956 number listed to opt out.
Dog is my co-pilot.
It's pretty painless to do. You need to have your account details, and you have to jump through a separate hoop for each number, but at least they retain your context from hoop to hoop. Saves you from having to enter your SSN every time.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I'm trying to understand this. Although it is painted as a marketing arrangement, does this provide them the immunity (going forward) that Congree would not grant retroactively?
My initial reaction was "No way!". I even started dialing the posted number...
Then I stopped to think — heck, if this improves the relevance of the advertising I'm getting, maybe, it is not such a terrible thing after all?
The only real risk I see here, is that it may allow the government to buy these records in the future (directly or via a contractor) instead of subpoenaing them in case of an investigation — the former could be easier (a good thing) and avoid the judicial oversight (a bad thing).
What am I missing?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I can't believe the shit companies can get away with over here. Call me paranoid, but I think my next cellphone will be another pay-as-you-go under someone else's name.
Actually. Maybe that would be a good business idea. Buy a PAYG phone and swap SIMS with someone at random. Maybe make it so you mail them on every few months. For the truly paranoid...
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
...of corporate (a)merica truly getting out of hand.
This scenario is much like a criminal going to commit a crime no matter what, but he won't if you get his letter in the mail and then take steps and waste your time to tell him not too. Just so many things wrong with this story, but unfortunately not shocking and of course NO ONE will do anything to stop this trend in the country other than bitch and moan.
I guess they want to follow the gmail model for advertising, etc.
Unfortunately, while many people have several e-mail accounts, you cannot
switch so easily between different phones. Moreover, gmail is nearly anonymous, while you
cell phone is anything but.
Incoming phone numbers? Not sure what Verizon does with those, but I don't even get those numbers from Sprint on my bill.
Opt-out for this kind of thing should be illegal. I should have to opt-in to allow this, but of course few people would so it might not be worth it to the companies. Which is why they use opt-out.
Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to do, but that would require morals wouldn't it.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
I know this is common practice, but I'd still like to believe that this would be a non-binding contract. Especially since there's no mutual consideration. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Law Review regarding Silence as Acceptance of an Offer:
It is generally held that an offeree has a right to make no reply to offers, and that his silence and inaction cannot be construed as an assent to the offer. This is true even though the offer states that silence will be taken as consent, for the offeror cannot prescribe conditions of rejections so as to turn silence on the part of the offeree into acceptance.The Virginia Law Review continues to talk about when silence is binding:
Where the offeror acts to his detriment in reasonable reliance on the offeree's conduct, the offeree's inaction, will be deemed an acceptance after he has remained silent for a reasonable length of time.The difference here, though is that Verizon isn't acting to its detriment, they're going to be getting a big fat cheque out of this from a 3rd party. So, once again, it goes back to mutual consideration.
order taker called me up in a sultry sexy voice and asked me if I wanted "deep dish". Verizon must have shared my phone records!
In the preferred embodiment a method of fucking over customers is described whereby private customer data is disclosed to third parties for profit.
Corporations, like governments, are amoral by definition. Opt-in would require business ethic, of which Verizon has repeatedly shown it has little. To be fair, the same applies to AT&T/SBC, Comcast, AOL, and any of the other big boys.
The people who consume the goods and services provided by the likes of Verizon have become less important than the companies willing to pay to mine customer databases. There's a lot of money in that, which means quality-of-service levels (and corresponding expenses) can be reduced while maintaining profitability. If that kind of information-sharing were simply illegal, perhaps our communications providers would have to get back to worrying themselves about what their customers want.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It seems that Verizon is trying to sidestep the 12/2/07 deadline for new rules regarding CPNI, however, I don't see how exactly this accomplishes that goal. Earlier this year, the FCC decided to change the CPNI rules for carriers (both wireless and wireline) to try and beef-up the security around the call details that these carriers handle: http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments.php?department_id=6&article_id=23
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into affect in December.
This is why it only costs $100 to buy your telephone records.
McNealy's law, people. You have no privacy, get over it.
--Dan
We need the Mutt Telco. "All telcos suck, mutt telco sucks less."
There's more to it than this.
Don't normally agree with AC trolls, but this is truly the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Perhaps you're not aware that the only thing that makes a SIM interesting to phone companies is the number its attached to? Swapping SIMs == swapping phone numbers. If you're paranoid enough to randomly get a new phone number every few months, perhaps you shouldn't own a phone?
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
It seems that Verizon is trying to sidestep the 12/2/07 deadline for new rules regarding CPNI. Earlier this year, the FCC decided to change the CPNI rules for carriers (both wireless and wireline) to try and beef-up the security around the call details that these carriers handle: http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments.php?department_id=6&article_id=23
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into effect in December.
After dialing 800-333-9956, you need to enter your Verizon mobile number, your billing zip code, your account password (if configured), and press '9' to confirm opt-out. If you have another mobile number you wish to opt-out, press '2' then repeat the above process. The first two tidbits of info could easily be obtained from public searches, the last maybe not so easily. And kudos to Verizon for not forcing me to make a phone call for each number to be opted out. In any case, I'm okay with opting out, though I'm not okay with the fact that I have to opt out.
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
I'm guessing that the NSA/FBI/CIA/[insert TLA here] will be considered an affiliate?
Meaning: In order to increase our revenue and profit margins ...
I guess it could be worse, they could be sharing your data with the NSA. Oh wait...damn.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It was one of those bill-stuffers that people tend to ignore.
Yes, Sprint never provided incoming call number info on its past bills, because its billing software was too stupid.
But Sprint is right now in the process of converting ALL customers over to Nextel's billing software (ENSEMBLE) and that software *will* provide you with incoming number info.
In the process of this conversion, it is also likely that many perks and discounts that you may have received from Sprint will be stripped off...
Target for total conversion is early 2008, about 30-40% of the conversion is complete now.
Is "sideways PDF" another way of saying that the submitter didn't know how to use the rotate button in the Acrobat viewer?
Of course the smart-ass response is, do you trust Google more than Verizon?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Sign up now for the list of people that don't want to be on a list list, because you didn't really think they would let you get out from under their watchful eye did you.
Sounds like absolutely nothing prevents some "affliate" from gathering up the CPNI and using it for all sorts of damaging stuff... like tracking how many elected officials call 1-800-HOT-GIRL, or married men who call single women's numbers often, and at nights and on weekends. The data mining-for-no-good possibilities are endless.
I have a prepaid Verizon Wireless phone. I just tried calling the opt out number and it gets kicked automatically to their generic account management number. I wonder if this disclosure policy applies to prepaid numbers?
This is so much bullshit. This should be opt-in.
Actually, it should just be illegal.
I'll take Verizon and their set of anti-customer policies in a second. AT&T actively ignored my complaints about dead cells and dropped calls right up to the time I stopped using their service.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Just a guess. Could be wrong, but probably not.
It's not a contract without mutual consideration. The contract is you agreeing to give them $60 a month for service.
In that contract, they're going to have fine print about the right to retain information for customer service or some such nonsense, and that they have the right to modify the terms by giving notice in writing 30 days in advance.
Which they did.
The government would love to get us networked in to the max as well, imagine this: you step on a child's toy on the stairwell in the middle of the night while headed to the restroom and fall down, government computers detect this and send you help, anger management team, first aid services, child protective services and who knows what else. Private industry can kick in too, electrician comes over to install a motion detector light source for the stairwell, led setups for detecting items on stairwells and who knows what else. After all this is for your own good, you shouldn't object and opting out is no longer a choice since we must think of the children and you might spank the poor little child for leaving that toy on the stairwell and thus harm them psychologically or physically and we don't have to worry that you might do such if we can get help to you in time.
I am from Europe and I don't like the way the governments here have chosen to protect our data. In the US the government doesn't care much (in theory - in practice it actively collects your data) and so you are responsible for protecting your own data, but here in Europe the government acts as a nanny to the point that it is very difficult even to keep an address book, and there are not good definitions explaining what personal data are. At least, that's how I see the situation. I think the best thing would be to have the government just assist citizens in protecting their data, without becoming a nanny and making life difficult for everyone. The funny thing is that all these data protection laws here in Europe only obstruct the small buys, because the big multinationals always find ways to bypass most restrictions, and actually these data protection laws create many problems to small businesses. I wouldn't be surprised if many people from the US would prefer to not startup a company in EU upon seeing EU's data protection laws. While I understand that the lack of data protection laws in the US is misused by many companies, I personally prefer to be responsible for protecting my data, rather than have a large bureaucracy trying to be everyone's nanny. Data protection laws should exist, but they shouldn't be so bureaucratic and expensive for small guys to implement as they are now in EU. Many people see the EU as more democratic, and in many ways it is, but it is still based on the old European concept of nanny states. I personally think the American political traditions are more sensible from a theoretical point of view (and in many cases also from a practical point of view as well), even though in practice they unfortunately didn't work too well in the last few decades.
The option for these kinds of schemes is always to "opt out" of the data sharing. Since I expect that the overwhelming majority of users would want to keep their calling records and data private, shouldn't the option be to "opt in" to the data sharing?
I called the customer service number (*611) and talked to a rep for 20 minutes asking every conceivable question about this policy change. I put her on speakerphone and continued reading slashdot while we chatted. If a lot of people called them like this, their call center costs will rise. I don't see really any other way of letting them know my discontent.
:)
+1 mod for screwing the big guy.
Why is it that corporate data (content) is so valuable that it
is a crime to copy it and you can go to jail and pay huge fines
for doing so, but the only thing I own -- data about personal
details of my life -- is up for grabs?!
My data can just be taken and used for any purpose, with no
consequences for those who take it. Sometimes, if I ask
politely, I can avoid having some of it used for some purposes,
if I happen to hear about it. I can certainly never get any
recompense from those who make so much from it.
Let's see. I suffer from a terrible disease of one type or another (My daughter thinks Mesothelioma is cool. I think she watches too much TV). Anyhow, I call several specialists to schedule appointments for treatment and then I call a lawyer to put the smack down on those nasty Asbestos peeps. An infomercial low-life who sells Mesothelioma snake oil buys my phone records, scans it for all the doctor records (umm... duh... they are online) connects the dots and then starts calling my number which is also on the DNC registery. Last time I checked, there were Federal laws against sharing medical information without express written permission.
Verizon is not alone in this. The companies (and even some DMV's and banks) are collecing and selling out their customer's data with complete disregard to the risks involved from privacy to identity theft. I went to CompUSA a few weeks ago to buy a Nokia N800 wifi internet tablet. At the checkout register, when the lady scanned it, a window popped up on her screen. She said I had to give my phone number, name and address to buy it. I asked why and she called her manager who said I have to provide this information otherwise they can't sell it to me. I explained that it is not a mobile phone but no luck. I left it at their checkout register and walked out. I came home and emailed the customer service who never responded. I also called the store manager on the phone and he explained that they build a profile of people buying computers so that they can provide service later if needed and it is NOT optional. Touch luck. I had to buy it from a different retailer because I felt that they had absolutely no need to collect my personal data.
When I signed up for Wall Street Journal print subscription, I used my abbreviated name in the mailing address in case they decide to print it and throw it out in the yard. Surprise surprise, within about 6 weeks, I started getting offers from other print media and magazines such as businessweek and economist with the exact same variation in my mailing address confirming that Wall Street Journal had already sold that data!!
It is sad that you have to opt out (they make it as difficult as possible) instead of opting in. And with acquisition of companies like Doubleclick, it seems that our darling Google is headed the same way!!
Is this letter from Verizon Wireless, or from a phisher? Is the phone number real? I called up Verizon Wirelss (using 611 from my phone -- not at the number on the letter) but they were unwilling to confirm or deny that they are doing this, or that 800-333-9956 is the correct phone number to opt out. After a few tries, I was able to explain to the customer service representative that anyone can send out letters claiming that they're Verizon, telling people to call and provide their SSNs. She agreed to file a complaint that will be reviewed by their marketing department. She noted in my complaint that I have no intention of doing any further business with Verizon Wireless, as a result of this stunt.
I am not a Verizon customer, but have made calls to many Verizon customers, and have received calls from many Verizon customers. Using only Verizon data, one would be able to reconstruct quite a bit of my calling patterns. Can I call Verizon, and have them withhold calls involving my phone number(s) ?
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
If Sprint does this, I'll be really upset. I can't even get that information for my own phone. My statements contain only "incoming" for incoming calls, so I can't see who all called me. I have even asked customer service, and they say they cannot provide that information.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Why should it be illegal to voluntarily give a cell phone company your SSN? Is someone forcing you to use their service?
Have you ever read "The Humanoids" by Jack Williamson? The kind of world it portrays is like the one you describe, only much worse.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yep, the FCC has auctioned off the public airwaves to them. So, if you want cell service, that is precisely what has going on.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Actually, the illegal part was referring to the information sharing - coming on the heels of the opt-in comment.
... my integrity is important to me, and I don't want to have to erode that just because of some stupid contract.
But the question still stands - why does a cell phone company need your SSN? I don't have verizon, so I don't know the context they ask for it in - but I'm having a hard time imagining a legitimate one. Even if it's optional - you'd be an idiot to provide it, and they shouldn't even be asking for it.
Somebody else mentioned that you could make one up
And yes, your SSN isn't the end of the world with regard to identity. But combined with everything else they probably have, and the dismal corporate track record regarding protecting customer data, I think it's a really bad idea to spread it around any more then it already is.
What cell service do you use that didn't require your SSN so they could do a credit check when you signed up?
Unless you're using a prepaid service, you almost certainly gave your cell provider your SSN.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Verizon is following rule #1 Opt-Out. Though I find the way they do it unethical.
Several posters have remarked that there is a new rule for Dec 07: It seems that Verizon is trying to sidestep the 12/2/07 deadline for new rules regarding CPNI. Earlier this year, the FCC decided to change the CPNI rules for carriers (both wireless and wireline) to try and beef-up the security around the call details that these carriers handle: http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments.php?department_id=6&article_id=23 [ipbusinessmag.com] I read this from the link above to ipbusinessmag.com and looks like if it is different, it still reeks of loopholes. Joint Venture and Independent Contractor Use of CPNI: Under previous FCC CPNI rules, carriers were permitted to share information with joint venture partners and independent contractors if they obtained "opt-out" approval from their customers. The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only. This opt-in requirement does not apply to the permissible disclosures of CPNI, such as sharing CPNI for billing purposes or to render services to the customer The part about the 'permitted to share information with joint venture partners and independent contractors if they obtained "opt-out" approval from their customers.' looks like a typo, shouldn't that be opt-in. Then the rest of it just looks like the same thing as they are doing. Can someone find something better from the FCC, I can't. Otherwise it looks like my first link, that you can do EXACTLY what Verizon is doing Now!
I just called the opt-out number and then went to the Verizon website and sent them a nasty letter promising that I'm moving to another service provider if I can find one among the lot that still has some scruples. Let's all send them messages to that effect. If nothing else, it'll at least piss them off a bit.
or the NSA, or whoever... Obiously, in these critical times of terrorist threats, anyone who opts out MUST have something to hide... What a great way to get a list of potential wiretap suspects !
/end sarcasm
Let's just face the facts, we have no privacy, no lawmakers actually care about privacy, they just promise things that will take as long to go into effect as it will for them to get out of office so they don't have to deal with it again.
I've got a plan though.
If enough of us forward calls from suspeted telemarketer numbers to suspected terrorists, we may be able to get rid of two turds, err I mean birds, with one stone.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
To answer your question in general, your cell company needs your SSN so they can check your credit. Unless you use pre-paid service, they're essentially lending you money which you pay back monthly.
In this case, they use the last four digits of your SSN as a password to authenticate you. Any time you call Verizon to change anything on your account, they ask you for those digits as authentication. It's a very weak authentication, sure, but it has the advantages that it's better than nothing, and it's a value that you and they already know, and that you aren't going to forget.
If you don't like using your SSN as a password (I don't, I think it's a terrible idea), you can set a password on your account, and then they'll use that one to authenticate you when you call in. I just called into the opt-out number and they asked me for my password, not my SSN.
This is so much bullshit. This should be opt-in.This I agree with.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I have tried to use the number to opt-out but it keeps asking for a "password" that I never setup. I guess they don't necessarily want me to be successful at opting-out.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
What makes you think this is specific to just AT&T? Everybody does it...and selling it wouldnt be the right word.
If anything, AT&T was one of the 'sightly less bad guys' for standing up to the situation, even if it was just complaining about how expensive the system is to support.
Those steaming sacks of shit are requiring that I opt out by calling an automated system and entering my phone number, billing zip code, and last four digits of my social security number. However, because I don't remember the random number I would have given any phone company who asked for my SSN, I can't enter it!
Actually, I do use a pre-paid phone (Tracfone). For the way I use a cell phone (very little), it's much cheaper then any plan I've looked at. And thus I was ignorant of the credit check requirement.
I guess this is just another reason not to get involved in a contract plan. Why do they need to do a credit check? If I default on my bill, they can pursue me the same way any other business does if I default on their bill. Do you need a credit check for a landline phone now also?
If they insist on it, the SSN should be used for the credit check and nothing else. And purged from the system when that is done.
Aside from utilities which apply to a particular location, what other bills do you have that don't require a credit check? Pretty much any situation where you use first and pay days or weeks later involves a credit check. Services that are tied to a location and for which the provider has a local monopoly are a bit different, but I think that's mostly because (a) you're probably not going to move to escape the bill and (b) you're probably not going to be willing to go without the service. Of course, there are some people for which (a) and/or (b) are not true, but the numbers are apparently low enough that it's not an issue.
If they insist on it, the SSN should be used for the credit check and nothing else. And purged from the system when that is done.That would be good, but if you don't pay your bill, and they don't have your SSN, how would they report your failure to pay to the credit bureaus? I can think of ways to accomplish this, but they mostly involve breaking the link between SSN and credit, which would be great, but isn't likely to happen.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is why I find it important to distinguish from consumer and customer. The customer is always right. The consumer is just a resource. Problem is, we are the consumer. The corporation on the other end of the data-mining business is the customer.
[
Flamebait? How does referencing a science-fiction book earn one a flamebait mod?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yes, good point.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I know you said 'essentially', but not really, they're giving you a service and allowing you to pay in arrears.
A comparison would be any restaurant where you pay your bill at the end of the meal. Many people I know have larger individual restaurant bills than monthly cellular bills, but no credit check there...
The U.S. system seems screwy for text messages, but it makes sense for voice calls. The caller pays for the cost of the call on the POTS system to whatever exchange the cellular number is in. Then the person with the cellphone pays for the airtime to transmit that call over the cellular network to their handset. (And they pay for the airtime whether the call is outgoing or incoming; what they're paying for is the circuit, not really the 'call.') This means, if the call originates from the same area that the cellphone's number is in, the caller pays next to nothing, since it's a local call. In fact, they have no way of knowing, just by looking at the number, whether it's a cell or landline. There's no difference in the U.S. between a "cellular number" and a "regular number."
It doesn't strike me as illogical. If it cost people more to call cellphones than landlines, the uptake of cellphones would have been a lot slower. I certainly wouldn't be able to use a cellphone as my primary business line, since it would be obnoxious to charge people more (and, hence, discourage them from calling me) because I want the ability to take calls on the road.
The U.S. pricing structure means that text messages are a bad deal (which is why they're little used here compared to in Europe), but it also sped the adoption of cell phones to many people who wouldn't have bought them otherwise, particularly business users, and it prevented people from consciously avoiding making calls to cell phones because of the expense. It puts the expense of owning a cellphone on the person who wants the convenience of being mobile, rather than on the caller.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Though I have never did a search and produced a statistical analysis from that search, I believe there would be a higher rate of downward moderation applied to mentions of such works as Orwell's 1984 then for other books, even if overall the mod ups for mentions of said books was in greater number. Not sure why anyone would want cradle to grave governance, of course many here might desire the pink coupons and scheduling from Zamyatin's We, especially if they could manipulate their schedule to include Natalie Portman.
Maybe someone will fix it for you. Anyway here is a nice offtopic AC comment they can mod offtopic and waste another mod point they can't harm anyone's karma with. At least modding this offtopic they would be accurate on, of course it is turning into flamebait with a bit troll included. =P~~~~~~
Because this mod-up/down thing gives people a lever. People, in general, don't have much power much less the ability to actually wield it. So its very much like giving a crack-whore a $1,000 rock and telling her to hand it out in small doses to all the other crack-whores...
Well, you get the picture. It ain't pretty.
But if you ask that same crack-whore what she thinks about the new Verizon Wireless policy she'd probably tell you she traded her cellphone for some rocks. Because in her world, she needs those crack-rocks a lot more thann she needs Verizon Wireless.
Come to think of it, that might be true in our world too.
But it is also true that Verizon Wireless is very much like that crack-whore. Under all that garish make-up and $10 dollar pumps, they're the same. Except, of course, that the crack-whore has a shot at redemption and Verizon Wireless doesn't. Because unlike Verizon Wireless, the crack-whore never forgets that her real mission is to please her customers. Imagine the uproar if she started selling your personal information... I think it would be about the same.
While this is clearly not the optimal solution...
What we need is a national 'Do Not Share My Information' registry - similar to the Do Not Call registry.
Consumers indicate ONE TIME that information will not be shared, and force the various companies to consult that database prior to releasing any data.
Oh, and make _them_ pay for it.
Swapping SIMs == swapping phone numbers.
Not in Finland at least. Operators are legally required to support transfer of phone numbers, so you don't have any artificial barrier preventing you from switching to the cheapest provider.
They aren't lending you money at all. Ever notice how your phone bill the first month you sign up is double-ish? Thats because they charge you the pro-rated amount for the remaining billing period, and then next months charge. In reality, you are giving them money for future airtime.
https://hotelextranet.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=logi&fram=&ussl=&uact=3&uurl=qscr%3Dxnet%26%26%26zz%3D1192428117625%26%26&zz=1192428118015
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=298027
When I was a kid living in Santa Cruz, Ca., the local Baskin Robbins (an ice cream eatery) had this program where you filled in a card with some basic information, including your birthdate. A few weeks before your birthday they would mail you a coupon for a free sundae(or something) redeemable on your birthday.
Some local guy used the same method mentioned above. He used a slightly wonky spelling of his name. He got his sundae on his birthday, but he also received a letter from the selective service stating that since it was his 18th birthday, he now needed to register with the them. The name on the envelope had the same wonky spelling he had provided to Baskin Robbins. After it hit the local newspaper, LOTS of people stepped forward with tales of the same thing. Turns out Baskin Robbins had been doing it for years.
And this was almost 30 years ago.
How can you expect the government to regulate this kind of stuff when they are one of the biggest consumers of such data?
The only thing that was in my maiden name the last time this happened was the Verizon land line bill. So if it isn't Verizon that is sharing the data, then who else could it possibly be?
I'm glad we ditched them finally, the old prepaid phone we have ended up being cheaper in the long run.
Governments, on the other hand, are by definition representative of the people of NAME YOUR COUNTRY and should therefore work in their best interests. That they usually don't is a separate problem..
Yup, I'm sure all those folks that use their verizon cells for business are just thrilled about this. Just thrilled.
This is mandated by an FCC regulation. As soon as I read through the teeny-tiny 11 point type, I realized that they were hiding the opt-out provision in a bunch of legal gobbledygook. I am sure that 99% of the people who received this threw it away without a second thought.
The details of this opt-out provision are buried about halfway through the document. It took longer to find the information in the document than to actually opt out.
Ask Me About... The 80's!
None of the companies I've used have done that. The first bill is typically a bit larger, but that's because it's typically for a bit more than a month.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yes, but few restaurants allow you to pay weeks after you eat.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
By letter, template below. Usually, only a letter is legalling binding.
YOUR ADDRESS HERE
DATE
A/C Number: aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to close my ISSUING COMPANY NAME Visa/Mastercard credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd. I enclose the one/two issued card(s), cut into pieces.
I have sent a check separately to pay the $$$$.cc balance outstanding on the current statement. I agree to pay for any transactions authorized by me that I have missed in my calculations as soon as you advise me of them.
Any further transactions to the credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd are not authorised by me, and I instruct you not to accept any further purchases or other debits to the account.
I also request that you remove me from your direct mail marketing lists and do not share my name, address, telephone, transaction, and other personal details with ISSUING COMPANY NAME's marketing affiliates or other organisations.
Yours faithfully,
YOUR FULL NAME
This is a scam, and a brillant one at that; it even tricked a lot of Slashdot readers, who I think are well above average when it comes to these sorts of things from the Internet. I just called Verizon directly -- not the 800 number posted in this article -- and this is a scam to get people to call in and enter their phone number and the last four digits of your SSN. If you called the 800 number, you may want to call Verizon (*611 from your Verizon phone) and start changing your phone numbers.
No, they just shouldn't do it. Because to make it illegal, we have to involve hundreds of lawyers, and waste everyone's time and taxpayer dollars to get some 1000 page document passed into law that some other lawyer at some point in time will "interpret" differently and allow some company to get away with something shady. Then we can start the lawsuit process, and get more lawyers involved. Our legal system is a quagmire.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
As a non VZW customer, how do I opt out of their sharing of my CPNI? When a VZW customer calls my cell phone, the CPNI for that call is shared by both VZW and my carrier. Without my express permission, I don't understand how VZW could share my CPNI which they have been ordered to protect by the FCC. They are essentially leaking my carrier's CPNI information in the process. Could there be any grounds here for a Class-Action to limit this? Until such time, I can at least try and ensure I do not take calls from VZW customers. Is there a way to prevent a VZW customer from calling my cell or home number? Is there any information in ANI or elsewhere that would allow me to configure my Asterisk server to reroute all VZW calls to a message announcing that I no longer accept calls from VZW customers due to VZW policy?
NATP450RUMM5KNW 05/23-05/28 8.00 8.00
NATP450RUMM5KNW 05/29-06/28 39.99 39.99
Would it be possible to copyright my personal information such that providing that information without my express permission would constitute copyright infringement?
NATP450RUMM5KNW 05/29-06/28 39.99 39.99
And when did this bill come? This looks like the bill for the end of the cycle, 6/28. So you paid this in early July, right? Or did you pay it when you opened the account, and then didn't get another bill until the end of July (so you started in advance, then ended up in arrears)? If you paid it when you opened the account, and paid another bill the beginning of July, August, September and October, then you are paying in advance. I've never seen that happen with any of the services I've used (and I've had a cellphone continuously since 1994, from several different providers), but if you are doing that, you should be careful to make sure you get a refund when you finally terminate your service.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The last prompt in the flow is "Press nine to opt out, or hang up now and no changes will be made."
Tricksy little bastards. Just another reason to change providers, on top of their spectrum lawsuit and the NARAL text message mess.
What you all think is about advertising and marketing couldn't be further from the truth. This program, and others like it, are stop-loss mechanisms to prevent legal liability by Verizon for handing this information over to the FBI, NSA, etc. *without* a warrant. Believe me, if you were a business looking at possible class-action damages on a scale that most of these Ma-Bell types are looking at-especially when courts are finding their information disclosures as unconstitutional-you'd find a way to trick people into implicit permission.
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.