Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T, Verizon To Require Opt-In For User Tracking

Posted by kdawson on from the about-thirteen-years-late dept.

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.'"

22 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe I'm paranoid, but how can user tracking ever be a good thing?

    --
    The game.
    1. Re:Why? by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      User tracking can't be good. The information gleaned from 15 million users can be. Imagine if you could see every search for political terms from anywhere. Those Google trends charts start to be more meaningful than they already are. Perhaps a researcher might want to know what level of exposure there is to cellular radiation among pre-teens? There are thousands of statistics that might probably be useful if everyone allowed tracking. Nobody wants big brother following them around town, or listening to their conversations. The dangers are imminent, and the idea that a health care provider might in the future refuse treatment of a skin tumor on your cheek because of recorded cellular usage is frighteningly real.

      The desire of big brother to want to be able to track anyone anytime is also a great danger. The bad guys will always thwart such efforts and only the innocent will be harmed.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    2. Re:Why? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, I don't have any children. Second, trust but verify. Children make mistakes - that's how they learn. As their parent and legal guardian, it's my job to minimize the impact of those mistakes and hopefully help them learn. Third, when my children start paying for the Internet connection which, by the way, is not a necessity, then they'll have the right to decide how they're going to use it. I pay for it, so I get to set and enforce the ground rules.

      I'm not saying spy on their every move, but if I see little Johnny running off to the hate speech sites or little Jenny running off to findasugardaddy.com, I have a vested interest in what is going on. It would be bad parenting of me not to find out.

  2. Buried in page 15 of the EULA? by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Buried in page 15 of the EULA? by digitalchinky · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or maybe, just maybe, these companies are fed up with 3 letter agencies poking their noses around and this is a way to 'stick it to the man'

      Perhaps they will be able to hold up their hands and say "We got nothing, sorry"

      Nobody does 'opt-in' these days, very probably there is a little more to this story.

    2. Re:Buried in page 15 of the EULA? by pha7boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that would not really be "opt in" it would be more like "force in" - I assume it will be one of those mildly worded pop-ups that most people will hit yes/no on without actually reading it. Those paying attention will be able to keep themselves out of it, but then again, it's not the "geek" the marketers are after - it's the housewife/grandma/teen that is the big prize.

      --
      -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    3. Re:Buried in page 15 of the EULA? by rpillala · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is certainly not the case. The three letter agencies are increasingly staffed with contractors from private firms. The idea of selling intelligence collection to the private sector has been gaining ground since GHW Bush years, and really took off after 9/11. At that time, the government found that they had laid off all the analysts who could do the kind of cold war work they needed, and had to rehire them at several times their old rate. Estimates put the number of contractors at CIA (for example) at 70% of the budget. The budget is, of course, highly classified and we can't know for certain.

      That's neither here nor there, but companies like Verizon wouldn't say no to a fat payday like they've been getting. In the name of corporate responsibility? Responsibility to anyone but their shareholders? If there hadn't been huge sums of money involved, Verizon wouldn't have cooperated with warrantless wiretapping programs in the first place.

      As recently as last year, a study group comprised of executives from Booz Allen Hamilton, SAIC, and other intelligence contractors reached the conclusion that foreign and domestic intelligence operations need to be more interconnected than they have been in the past. Surprise, surprise, since it means they'll get a lot more work from the govt.

      Read Spies for Hire by Tim Shorrock.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  3. Let me guess... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Let me guess... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Or, the ever popular "by continuing to use this service you agree to all terms and conditions" when they change their TOS to existing customers.

      I simply have a hard time that these companies will keep this one little line item separate, and make sure that when you click on it you are only clicking on it.

      The propensity to bundle all of the things into one big uber license it just too common, and companies retroactively changing TOS is hardly new.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Define "meaningful" opt-in by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  5. BS by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AT&T cannot ever be trusted.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  6. Nobody said it will be good for YOU by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Nobody said it will be good for YOU by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Psssst. Hey, buddy. I've got 10 copies of Duke Nuke 'Em Forever. Wanna buy any?

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Nobody said it will be good for YOU by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will be good for the economy. In particular, the 'economy' of the ISPs. You either opt-in, so the ISP makes money showing you targeted ads, or you don't, and will need to pay the ISP an extra $5/month.

      Sure, it's not like this now, but it will eventually be like this (similar to having to pay a fee to the manufacturer to "remove" the crapware from your new computer)...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  7. Opting-Out Mr. Anderson? by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  8. Opt-In Via Clickjacking by Prototerm · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)
  9. The only reason they decided this..... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  10. How about a discount? by sBox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they offered a break on our monthly bills for anonymous usage statistics, I bet 72% of Americans would take it.

  11. Uh huhh, riiiight. by handmedowns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:"The rest of the web world"? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    Yes. As much as people argue that an ISP isn't a common carrier, they essentially fill the role.

    They can't have it both ways. Either they're just a medium and what you transmit is none of their business, allowing them to retain zero liability for what you send. Or, they're not a common carrier, and they can read it all they want but also be on the hook for policing it.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  13. Proper terminology by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it would be "trick-in."

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  14. Dear AT&T / Verizon Customer by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.