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.
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 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.
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.
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.
We have until November 11 to opt out. Only Verizon's parent company would get the data.
The following details would be uploaded:
- # of total calls
- time and duration of individual calls but not the actual phone numbers involved - this was emphasized by the rep
- quality metrics (whatever those might be; I'm assuming call drops and tower transfers at least)
- # of voice minutes vs. data minutes
- average revenue for my account
- applicable discount tier
- type of calling plan
- # of lines (for example, two different phone numbers which are billed under one account)
I did express my dissatisfaction at the automatic opt-in nature of the program, and that I had not yet received the letter. The rep knew about the 800 number, and offered to transfer me over.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.
Second trick for stupid businesses wanting to do this sort of "tracking." I used to use this for Radio Shack all the time:
Give them their own address and phone number. At least at Radio Shack they always have a business card at the counter. So many clueless clerks never even noticed. The few that do notice, "Hey, that's our number/address!" you can just chuckle and reply, "Yeah, you can field my junk mail."
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.
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