Slashdot Mirror
AT&T, Verizon To Require Opt-In For User Tracking
ehaggis writes "The Washington Post reports that AT&T and Verizon have pledged not to track customers' internet behavior unless given explicit, opt-in permission. The two companies made this commitment in a Congressional hearing. A Verizon vice president is quoted: 'Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data... it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers.' The article also mentions a survey quoted by a congressman indicating that '72 percent of Americans worry their online activities are being tracked by companies.'"
Maybe I'm paranoid, but how can user tracking ever be a good thing?
The game.
If I'm to go by what other companies think it's a clearly affirmative accepting a contract, it'll probably go like this: somewhere in the fine print of their contract, or maybe in an EULA on their router/modem config page, will be something like "I agree to be tracked, and the company can do whatever it wishes with my data." And if you don't agree, then you can't use their service. Bonus points if:
A) you only find that out after you bougt the service and,
B) they're the only choice you have.
Hey, it worked for software EULAs, didn't it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The "opt-in" will be part of the agreement to get service in the first place, thereby adhering to the letter of this promise, but not the spirit.
Will they really lay it all out for the customer: "We want to spy on you. Is that cool?" Or will they try and hide it in section 10.123.31 of the TOS: "By breathing, you hereby give ATT perpetual, non-revocable permission to spy on you."
I'm pretty sure the "explicit opt-in" will be something buried deep within the TOS agreement, like, page 30 or something. I don't trust these guys one bit. They've been dirty, they're still dirty, and they're getting nastier every day.
This makes me happy. Not as happy as shaved pussy, but it's nice.
AT&T cannot ever be trusted.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Well, nobody said it will be good for _you_. You're just supposed to believe that it'll be good for the economy -- in the same way, say, telemarketing calls or companies selling your private data are -- and saves the company some money, and _of_ _course_ they'll pass the savings on to you, the consumer.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
So, tell me Mr. Anderson, why didn't YOU opt-in?
I mean, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you might as well, right?
My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you, but I believe you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Clickjacking is about the only way they'd be able to get anyone to give their "informed" consent.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
OK, if I was getting my internet service through Google instead of AT&T I'd be more worried about Google, as opposed to AT&T, tracking my online activity.
Not hat I'm exactly happy about Google's history, but damn, when an ISP can see every page you visit no matter who's hosting it they should be expected to hold to a higher standard of behavior.
is whatever it is, that AT&T is lying about it.
I used to work for those guys, and "not telling the customer what is going on" was the first hour of training. (As in, how to do it effectively without sounding like you are doing it.)
After the mystery rooms are gone, they may have a shred of credibility. But now? Uhm, no.
voluntarily, is because they are trying to head off government regulation of private data.
But people are right, it will probably be buried inside the TOS, which makes for an interesting dilemma, since requiring explicit permission to use the data would allow you to say yes or no without affecting your service, but if you say no to the TOS because the clause is in there, you can be denied service....
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
If they offered a break on our monthly bills for anonymous usage statistics, I bet 72% of Americans would take it.
Why is this even relevant since we already know they assisted with warrantless wiretapping? Are they trying to prove they have a conscience or prove that they've got ethics and respect our privacy so long as no one else asks them to violate it? What a joke. I will never support AT&T or Verizon in any way that I'll be aware of.
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
From the article:
"If given a choice and clear notice, most people probably would not "opt in" to tracking -- and advertising would suffer..."
"Every advertising platform and business model would be put at risk."
It is obvious that from the outset these business models were based deliberately on surreptitious methods with no thought whatsoever given to future consequences. Such actions are both flagrantly unconscionable and inexcusable.
The consumer must come first. If many businesses will fail because of an "opt in" policy then so be it. The fault is entirely upon these short-sighted -- if not totally corrupt -- investors and entrepreneurs.
Comcast throttling my bandwidth is more attractive than trusting AT&T's word. Once a lier, always a lier.
there needs to be more choice in service providers in the U.S.
How do you check if your on the Opt-in list? When signing up for any service provider, you have to check of an dagree to these LONG agreements. What if one of the questiosn forces you to opt-in? So back to my orginal question, how do we check if we are already on the opt-in list?
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
This isn't a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense, at least in the way the tagger meant it. They just want to avoid legislation which would require opt-in before they could do any user tracking, with criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Trusting them to uphold this pledge in any meaningful way is like trusting the deregulated banks not to invest in overly risky derivatives. That should never have been left to their discretion; neither should this.
I think it would be "trick-in."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Telecos and Cable companies love the negative option approach (you're in unless you tell us you're not) and bury it in fine print. It will be interesting to see how they word future agreements and how they bury the provisos.
What he said is essentially meaningless since he didn't say "Internet-usage data" or "all Internet-usage data". The word 'certain' could be anything and nothing. I'm not convinced.
Something about the '72 percent of Americans worry their online activities are being tracked by companies.' thing just pisses me right off. It's like saying it doesn't matter if people aren't aware they are being screwed over, so let's take a survey to see if we really need to address it or not. Maybe we can learn how to keep secrets better and fuck over the public a little more. These surveys are great!
Really though, I don't give a shit who is worried about it or not. If the bastards are doing it, then address that. We don't need everything tracked in the name of security. If you are infringing on 99.9% of innocent people to catch the .1%, then it's obviously wrong.
It's not like they'll continue to track information or use what they've already gathered over the past years.
Sure they were given immunity from lawsuits for exactly that situation, but that doesn't mean they'll want to get away with it!
Please accept this check for $8.99 as a show of gratitude for being a customer.
Please note depositing the check indicates you want to enroll in our free customer satisfaction service. The CSS includes free online billing information and free online customer tracking services. You'll also be able to get offers for special discounts to concerts and shows!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
that it has to do with the big 2 trying to keep the government from regulating them on tracking users' browsing habits. The article indicated that this was about saying "hey we don't want regulation from you we can regulate ourselves see". Which we all still know is a crock since we as the consumer have no actual oversight on how this all actually works behind the scenes.
The article had nothing to do with the government wire tappings, etc. Although I would yield to the fact that they didn't explicitly say anything against doing so. Basically Verizon and ATT were saying hey we handle our customer data and choices for them better than Google does, go after Google.
Now, with that being said I wouldn't assume you're "safe" (depending on your paranoia level) from peering eyes on your activities both on your mobile web and phone usage. If the military/CIA/NSA/[insert hated 3 letter FED here] deem your usage an urgent matter of national security they're going to be able to see whatever you've done assuming the said provider has the data. I don't know why everyone thinks that just because it isn't outlined in some law or some TOS or EULA that this doesn't happen. Sad as it is at this point in our history (regardless of whom is in power) the government does whatever the hell it wants to whom ever the hell it wants. And good luck trying to stop them or get any reparations from them when its over and you're laying in the street naked after being raped.
This is the reality we live in and it won't change until we as a society (idiots and all) decide we want real change and no I don't mean the Obama "change". Yeesh that guy needs another slogan. And no, I'm not rooting for the other guy either. But you know what...just as posted in another slashdot "thread" trading one asshat for another really isn't a "choice".
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
And AT&T has never, every lied to Congress before.