Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Wants To Share Your Personal Information

hyades1 writes "Gizmodo reports that Verizon is sending out notification letters infested with virtually-indecipherable legalese. In their sneaky, underhanded way, they're informing you that you have 45 days to opt out of their plan to share your personal data with 'affiliates, agents and parent companies.' That data can include, but isn't limited to, 'services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive), billing info, technical info and location info.' If you view your statement on-line, you won't even get the letter. You'll have to access your account and view your messages. However, Read Write Web says the link provided there, called the 'Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice,' was listed as 'not available.' No doubt Verizon would like to reassure you that everyone they're going to hand your personal data over to will have your best interests at heart."

236 comments

  1. boy am I glad by peragrin · · Score: 5, Funny

    that i have AT&T and they won't ever try to abuse me.

    Excuse me now I have to go reset my sarcasm meter. for some reason it gets pegged all the time now.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:boy am I glad by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      i have AT&T and they won't ever try to abuse me.

      Ha ... I have Sprint and was going to say the same thing.

      Bloodsuckers, all of them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:boy am I glad by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The summary is blatantly wrong.

      Verizon will NOT just hand over your information to other companies.

      I am 100% sure that Verizon will demand a bunch of money before these companies get to see any of your personal, private information. Once the companies have made the payment, then they can do whatever they want with your information. And if they make their regular monthly payments, they get access to updated information from Verizon.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:boy am I glad by momerath2003 · · Score: 2, Informative

      About a month ago, I got a similar letter from AT&T describing how I could opt out of having my personal information shared with affiliates, etc.

      When I called the number to opt out, I had to sit through sixty seconds of a computer verifying that yes, I was turning down all sorts of great offers etc.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    4. Re:boy am I glad by Teun · · Score: 2, Funny

      And it was neither of the two when I wrote my sig...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:boy am I glad by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're a regulated monopoly.. why do they need other "revenue streams"? They're not a "normal" company in that they can ask for rate increases to cover any operational losses... they have no need for income streams from other purposes... they shouldn't be handing out customer data.. because you have no real way to opt out of their monopoly.

    6. Re:boy am I glad by sdnoob · · Score: 3, Informative

      About a month ago, I got a similar letter from AT&T describing how I could opt out ...

      US Cellular did the same thing last year... IIRC, it was right after some sort of legislation or rules change that allowed them to share the data.

      Opting out was painless, just had to call a number and it was automated... *however* people should have to opt *IN* not opt out.

    7. Re:boy am I glad by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They may be part of a semi-regulated cartel, but they also have shareholders, so they have an obligation to do this to their customers. ...won't someone think of the shareholders...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:boy am I glad by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there. If someone gives me £500, I'm not obliged to go out and kill their rich grandparent for them. Why not? Because it's against the law and they didn't give me the money on the expectation that I would go out and indulge in unethical behaviour on their part and if they did then more fool them.

      Companies don't exist as indivisible entities. Somewhere there are people saying "lets violate people's privacy" and they should be personally held accountable because they are personally responsible.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    9. Re:boy am I glad by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      I smell a pimp analogy in here somewhere. The consumer gets abused while Mr. Pimp there walks away with all the cash.

      Consumer 'reward'? Lousy service.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    10. Re:boy am I glad by AmigaMMC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had Verizon for 5 years and boy, am I happy that I dropped them like hot potatoes. I even had to fight them for 9 months for getting my due rebate. Moreover, I found out that they had me on collection for years because the idiot that I returned the phone to the day after purchasing it (it malfunctioned) forgot to do their paperwork. I had to get the FTC involved and finally they stopped asking for money. What's worse was that they don't communicate among departments otherwise they would have seen that I had an active line with payments made regularly.

    11. Re:boy am I glad by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Opting out was painless, just had to call a number and it was automated... *however* people should have to opt *IN* not opt out.

      But then they'd have to offer you something in return, to entice you to opt in. The underhanded way they're doing it, it costs them nothing. Most likely, their income from selling customer information won't be reduced unless quite a lot of subscribers opt out.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    12. Re:boy am I glad by narcberry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If congress didn't lock these companies in place with huge piles of money, we might have some entrepreneurs entering the space with words like, "customer", "service", and "helpful" in their dictionary.

      Anyhow, I hope this presents an opportunity to end my contract with Verizon, I missed the last one they never mailed me.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    13. Re:boy am I glad by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      Please do let us know if you have any luck ending your contract.

    14. Re:boy am I glad by uassholes · · Score: 1
      The purpose of the legal entity known as a corporation is to make a company an indivisible entity and shield it's officers and shareholders from responsibility for the actions of the officers and shareholders.

      Companies don't exist as indivisible entities. Somewhere there are people saying "lets violate people's privacy" and they should be personally held accountable because they are personally responsible.

    15. Re:boy am I glad by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The purpose of the legal entity known as a corporation is to make a company an indivisible entity and shield it's officers and shareholders from responsibility for the actions of the officers and shareholders.

      That certainly is the purpose. And a child can say that his friends told him to do something wrong. In either case the purpose is to pretend the responsibility lies elsewhere. That doesn't mean it does.

      Law, especially the law around very big businesses, is not always the same as what is right and wrong. We shouldn't allow the passing of a law to change our principles. Laws can be changed.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    16. Re:boy am I glad by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there.

      Unless of course, they're the ones with the money, so the law protects them and only them. Even with your money.

    17. Re:boy am I glad by Kozz · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We don't care. We're the phone company. We don't have to."

      http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76aphonecompany.phtml

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    18. Re:boy am I glad by narcberry · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the meantime, here's how to opt-out (taken from the mouth of FredicvsMaximvs from the article comments)

      - Sign in to the Verizon website.
      - On the red bar near the top, hover over "My Verizon." Click on "My Profile." (Don't go over to the sub-menu that pops up.)
      - In the second section down, under Phone Controls, there's a link to "View/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settings." Click on that.
      - Voila! Click on the button that says "Don't share my CPNI." Remember to hit the save button before you leave.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    19. Re:boy am I glad by ThomConspicuous · · Score: 1

      Good information and thanks for sharing but I went to check mine and it was already defaulted to 'Don't Share My CPNI'. I've never opted out of this before so I'm only assuming it's defaulted this way for others.

    20. Re:boy am I glad by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mr. Pimp says
      All fees where clearly listed.
      She let you connect to all 3 ports and you dont have a rash. Thats better than Microsoft.
      She did not report your pillow talk to the feds, thats better than Verizon.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    21. Re:boy am I glad by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    22. Re:boy am I glad by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      It isn't defaulted to "Don't share." I never visited this link before and the four lines on my Family Share Plan were all wide open.

      I can't wait till my two year agreement is up in July.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    23. Re:boy am I glad by cbeaudry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the best option is to call them. Ask to speak to a supervisor.

      Tell them over the phone, you opt OUT and you want them to change any records necessary to make sure you are opted out.

      Ask them if they are NOT recording this they SHOULD be recording as you are recording it as well.

      Tell them if they do not opt you out immediately that you will sue them in court and it wont be pretty.

      Then... hope to god they make a mistake :)

      Im from Canada and Im usually not a litigious person. But these corporate bloodsucking companies need to get their ass handed to them.

    24. Re:boy am I glad by bootup · · Score: 1

      I just opted out via the automated 800 number. Quick and easy; 1 800 333 9956.

    25. Re:boy am I glad by centuren · · Score: 1

      Threatening to sue Verizon won't help you at all. Remember 2600's www.VerizonShouldSpendMoreTimeFixingItsNetworksAndLessMoneyOnLawyers.com? Suing over an opt-out issue would just end up costing you a lot of money.

    26. Re:boy am I glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law, especially the law around very big businesses, is not always the same as what is right and wrong. We shouldn't allow the passing of a law to change our principles. Laws can be changed.

      So can Society's perception of unethical behavior.

      Do what you were taught to do..... or else you're just another A**hole that wants to follow the party line.

    27. Re:boy am I glad by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then other people who agree with the case of the plaintiff should show that support by donating money or time to a common fund, much like donating money to NewYorkCountryLawyer's website for the outstanding work he does.

      One man cannot win any battle, but it only takes one spokesperson to rally a thousand supporters. It's a question of who is willing to put their neck on the line. If I could guarantee that the rest of the nation wouldn't be the apathetic, TV-hungry baffoons we know them to be, I'd be first in the queue, believe me.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    28. Re:boy am I glad by wcbsd · · Score: 1

      Done and done. If I had any more mod points, I'd use 'em. Thanks.

    29. Re:boy am I glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cartelco

    30. Re:boy am I glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @narcberry, thanks for the link sequence!

    31. Re:boy am I glad by gormanw · · Score: 0

      What Verizon wants to do is share the information between Verizon Communications, Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Business. If you have Verizon Wireless, but not Fios, Verizon the mother ship wants to market you Fios. While changes in privacy policies rightly raise red flags, in this instance, Verizon has to request customer authorization to share customer data between its corporate entities.

    32. Re:boy am I glad by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You know "whatever the market will bear" refers to a lot more than cash price.

      Its like banks. We changed the federal reserve system around 8 years ago to do instant check clearing. As soon as the bank gets your check, they image it, send off the image...and bang... checks clear immediatly.

      Of course... without any regulation to force the benefit to be shared with consumers, it wasn't. We got a trickle down... they just pissed on us. How long to checks take to clear 8 years later? Oh... 3 days instate, 10 days out of state.

      They kept te entirely artifical distinction, and the clearance times... all the while they already have your money. Holding it for a clearance that already came.

      Right nice of them to hold your money for you.

      Which banks do it? As far as I can tell... all of them.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    33. Re:boy am I glad by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually I disagree. That is one of the things a corperation does, and is, in my mind, a perversion to be considered the only reason.

      The purpose of a corperation is to make money for its shareholders by providing benefit to community by fullfilling one or more of their needs in exchange for money.

      The benefit to the community should be considered as much the purpose of the busisness as the making of the money, and whenever it isn't, is when you see these sorts of gross abuses.

      Frankly, I think we should have regulation that forbids the formation of any company that doesn't state as part of its purpose that one of its core purposes is anything other than benefit to the community.

      After all, thats why we give them the privilege of limited liability.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    34. Re:boy am I glad by evansvillelinux · · Score: 1

      Bloodsuckers, all of them.

      Blood isn't the word that popped into *MY* mind!

      --
      IMHO, IANAL, TINLA, etc...
    35. Re:boy am I glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine is already checked to do not share, which leads me to believe that updating it right now may not have any effect on the upcoming shenanigans.

      I'll be double-checking it regularly for the next few weeks at least to make sure it STAYS "do not share".

    36. Re:boy am I glad by fugue · · Score: 1

      I think your agreement is up now. If they change the terms of the contract, it's a new contract. The old one is void. They don't like it and will try to persuade you that it's not true, but check on the legality of getting someone to sign one contract and then substituting another one in its place.

      I used a contract change (additional 37 cent service charge or some bullshit like that) to get out of my Verizon contract a few years ago. They called me a few times to try to persuade me to pay an early termination fee, but eventually I explained it to them on terms they could understand, and they sent me my prorated refund.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    37. Re:boy am I glad by saiha · · Score: 2, Funny

      For some reason I was reminded of The Office when Michael "declared bankruptcy".

  2. Verizon sucks at math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to just be math, I guess now you can add "not being ridiculous" to the list, too.

  3. Hey Verizon :) by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm posting here that I'm going to eat all of your staff's pets.

    You 15 minutes to reply to this post, or you agree that Bruno the Poodle is my main course.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Hey Verizon :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm posting here that I'm going to eat all of your staff's pets. You 15 minutes to reply to this post, or you agree that Bruno the Poodle is my main course.

      Sounds good to me.

      - Ivan Seidenberg

    2. Re:Hey Verizon :) by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2, Funny

      You 15 minutes to reply to this post, or you agree that Bruno the Poodle is my main course.

      You accidentally the verb.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Hey Verizon :) by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      OPT/OUT

    4. Re:Hey Verizon :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Verizon... am I too late?

  4. Frogs in boiling water by sentientbeing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I know the UK gets slammed regularly here on Slashdot for CCTV privacy issues and government spying, but at least we have a halfway decent Data Protection Act with teeth. A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK. Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    1. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Ontheotherhand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the subtle irony of your post may be lost on the less British. my personal favourite is the local council that used anti terror legislation to spy on a family who were applying for a school place. Thank goodness commercial organisations cant protect us in this way - yet.

    2. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, I know the UK gets slammed regularly here on Slashdot for CCTV privacy issues and government spying, but at least we have a halfway decent Data Protection Act with teeth. A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK. Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?

      Yes, indeed ... we have Congress ...

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Turzyx · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Here in the UK companies don't even need to pay for this information, they can just pull the data off the unencrypted USB sticks they find lying around on the tube.

    4. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently not.

    5. Re:Frogs in boiling water by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey guess what? I can cancel with verizon right now before this takes effect and sign up with a company who doesn't do this (which I'm currently doing).

      You cannot get Freedom of speech, privacy or your money back from outrageous taxes. Welcome to your big brother world.

      --

      Liberty.

    6. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaning... no? :P

    7. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meaning... no? :P

      I should have thought that was obvious.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Frogs in boiling water by EddyPearson · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean a company like Phorm , who have been getting backing from both BT (THE telco out here) and the Gov't despite the exclusively bad press?

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    9. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem...

      'Do not touch' - the covert database that kept union activists out of work

      Albeit caught now, but this has been going for yeeeears...

    10. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We have contracts. I am a Verizon customer and I read this story and called up and now, I'm opted out (I offered to opt in for $5/month off my bill, about what I think that's worth, they declined). In the end-game, if VZ wouldn't agree to let me opt out, I'd consider other service providers, compare all my options, and pick the one I liked the most.

      For the masses that don't care to opt-out, they don't care! Giving out personal information is not an injury to people that don't care. I know it's impossible for /.ers to imagine that other people might have more a different set of priorities than they do, but it's a fact that different people care about different sets of things. Even people that care about the same set of things assign different weights and will come up with different tradeoffs. What's nice about a system of voluntary associations is that those sets of priorities can be efficiently mapped into different contract terms instead of everyone getting a one-sized-fits-all solution.

      I really cannot understand why some people believe that they have the right to dictate the terms under which someone sells them a service. If you went into the grocery store and saw a 6-pack of apples being sold for $1, would you demand (citing some clearly inalienable right) that they sell you a 5-pack of apples for $.80? If you don't want apples on the terms that the store is selling them, buy them from a different store. If no store has terms you approve of, then you have to admit the fact that no other human being will voluntarily give you his apples under those terms. Either change your terms, or start rationalizing to yourself your right to seize those apples from him involuntarily.

    11. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?"

      The "either party can end this agreement at any time" clause.

    12. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ghyspran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is not that Verizon shouldn't be allowed to sell you services under their rules; that is fine. What isn't fine is selling service under one set of rules and then changing those rules with little notice (or apparently none if you view your bill online), especially when those changes concern your privacy.

    13. Re:Frogs in boiling water by DeadChobi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that the stance you take ignores the whole concept of barter which has been part of human existence since a guy first decided to sell apples. Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay. There are markets in other countries where this is still considered acceptable, and where merchants price items specifically so that they can haggle down to a reasonable price. The fact that we accept without question that companies just sell us service for a flat rate means that they don't have to compete as directly with each other.

      Furthermore, we don't believe in our unalienable right to those apples. We believe that we have the right to negotiate the price of those apples or seek apples elsewhere. Reasonable people realise that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to part with anything without a fair exchange. We would only quibble over what constitutes fairness. Maybe you're the one being irrational? Isn't it a bit irrational to expect people not to negotiate for anything at all?

      Case in point, I asked a bank teller if one of their fees was reasonable, and she promptly removed it after thinking about it herself. It's okay to want to negotiate.

      --
      SRSLY.
    14. Re:Frogs in boiling water by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, indeed ... we have Congress ...

      Thanks, my nose needed rinsed out with milk, and it has been awhile since I wiped off the keyboard and LCD...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    15. Re:Frogs in boiling water by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No.

      Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.

    16. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If the UK's Data Protection Act had any teeth at all, they would have ruled the IP packet inspecting / changing Phorm system illegal under existing laws, and not have the situation that the Phorm company is going around trying to suppress knowledge of their system to subscribers of the three scumbag internet providers that will roll out this system (BT, Virgin Media, TalkTalk).

      http://wikileaks.org/wiki/UK_media_suppressed_Phorm_survey_and_article%2C_2009

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    17. Re:Frogs in boiling water by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Funny

      Verizon: "But Mr Dent, the privacy opt-out contract has been available in the local telecom office for the last nine months."

      Dent: "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

      Verizon: "But the contract was on display ..."

      Dent: "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

      Verizon: "That's the display department."

      Dent: "With a flashlight."

      Verizon: "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

      Dent: "So had the stairs."

      Verizon: "But look, you found the privacy notice didn't you?"

      Dent: "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    18. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that they change the contract whenever their hemorrhoids flare up and the customer has no say in the matter.

    19. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the MoD leaves loads lying around. And it's not unknown to find DLVA data either.

    20. Re:Frogs in boiling water by AmigaMMC · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.

      Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR. Thanks George W. Reagan!

    21. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There's an even more teethful Datenschutzgesetz (Data Protection Act) in Germany. Just guess who tried to trick me into an agreement -formulated exactly in the same legalese as mentioned- to renounce any protection of my personal data and therefore allow them to sell them. Vodafone.

    22. Re:Frogs in boiling water by BazilBBrush · · Score: 1

      Exactly, because they know no-one is interested in their haemorrhoids...

      On a more serious note, IANAL and all, but in general, contract law says that terns and conditions are part of a contract, and both parties have to agree - no agree no contract. And yet, if we are subject to an early termination penalty, and they shift the goal posts, changing the contract, and we don't agree to that, they claim they still have a right to the early termination clause...

      Would it stand up???

    23. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I can cancel with verizon right now before this takes effect and sign up with a company who doesn't do this (which I'm currently doing).

      Who are you signing up with instead? You know of an American telecom company that's not a bunch of morally crippled rat bastards who ought to be first against the wall when the revolution comes?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    24. Re:Frogs in boiling water by soren202 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      against the wall?

      I thought we were using the guillotine again. Guns are just so boring.

    25. Re:Frogs in boiling water by soren202 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you even read the summary of the article? Verizon will be selling things like billing info, technical info and location info, among other things.

      Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.

      Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.

      Although it's true that we can't dictate the exact cost of a service, having personal information sold to other companies at no benefit to the consumer on an opt out basis is wrong, regardless of the context.

      If it's a way to have your bills reduced or if it's on an opt in rather than opt out basis, then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your stance, but, as it stands, Verizon is selling private information to other companies with no benefit to the end consumer. There is no way, regardless of your convoluted view of the system, that such a situation could ever be considered fair or right.

    26. Re:Frogs in boiling water by cyn1c77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.

      Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR. Thanks George W. Reagan!

      I'm not going to disagree with you about who started chipping away at the public good in favor of corporate greed. Sadly though, I think that both major parties are guilty. Priority goes to getting yourself re-elected, which involves bringing the most pork into your district and making the corporate lobbyists happy so that they don't overthrow you on the next election.

      When advertising and lobbyists started having more effect on elections than the actual facts on the ground, the general public lost out.

      Now it's just like herding sheep.

    27. Re:Frogs in boiling water by AmigaMMC · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Amen to that brother

    28. Re:Frogs in boiling water by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      If I were you I would opt out and then cancel.

      It's a pretty safe bet that they will sell any ex-customers data without a second thought if they didn't opt out. And probably even do it if you did.

    29. Re:Frogs in boiling water by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      For the masses that don't care to opt-out, they don't care

      - possibly you are correct. It is also possible that you are wrong and that most people don't understand what is being done to them. They may not understand that it is even possible for a company, which is only supposed to provide them with a service for a fee, can also make more money on creating a nuisance for the customer by selling customers' private information that will be used for unsolicited advertisement.

      If Verizon actually expected most customers to be able to understand what was offered, they would explain it plainly in bold and would make it an opt IN, not an opt out.

      Clearly, what Verizon is doing is not ethical at the least.

    30. Re:Frogs in boiling water by rnelsonee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but name one person who enjoys paying more for services than their neighbor.

      Verizon will be selling personal information for *money*, and this influx of capital will mean that customers won't have to be 100% responsible for Verizon's monthly operating budget, upgrade projects, or anything else that the company spends money on.

      Every successful company (and let's face it, Verizon is one of them) spends its money wisely. It's not like the money Verizon is getting for this is going to the Buy-the-CEO-a-Mercedes fund -- it will go into the budget just as all the customer payments do.

      If Verizon doesn't sell your info (which most customers don't value much anyway), then either service will degrade, prices will go up, or Verizon will not be able to offer new products. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    31. Re:Frogs in boiling water by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sadly our whores....errr politicians sold us out years ago. Unless you got a big bag o' cash your voice and those of your fellow citizens is pretty much worthless here. That is why my boys, who will both soon turn 18, say they will never vote. They say it isn't worth even five minutes of their time for what has become nothing but a sham. Sadly I couldn't really argue with them as they had a point.

      Here we have voted FOUR times now for a lotto so our kids can get free college education. Our whores...cough cough legislators took big bags o' cash from the states nearby that have legalized gambling. So guess who has made sure that every time we vote they find a way to ignore us? Yep, our nice little whores. Vote them out ALL you want, the replacements like the big bags o' cash just as much as the ones we got now. Twice they shot us down as "badly worded" on the ballot, and once as "too vague" and now they are going for the badly worded again even though we used the SAME language as on every other state's lotto ballots.

      Don't you just LOVE blatant corruption? That is why nobody gives a shit about their country anymore, the stench of corruption is gotten so damned thick they don't even try to hide the payoffs anymore. So you might as well grab every damned dime you can from the government before the thing burns to the ground. Because no matter who you vote for they are already bought before they even get on the ballot. Depressing but true. I wonder if this is how Rome fell. Did the Romans see so much corruption they just stopped giving a shit? Because talking to the young folks at my boys schools they couldn't care less if the whole damned thing burnt to the ground. All they see is piggish greed and corruption everywhere. One of the previous generations had "don't trust anyone over 30"? Well they don't trust nobody, period. Sadly again I can't say that I blame them. If Kennedy gave his "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech today the FIRST thought in anyone's mind would be "who is he getting paid off by?" and frankly that is just freaking sad.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:Frogs in boiling water by slughead · · Score: 1

      It was thanks to Ronald Reagan

      That's right. Greedy politicians and powerful corporations didn't exist till the 1980's.

      I suppose you'd have to ignore the Railroads of the 1860's which were practically made a branch of government by Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and the car companies in the 1950's... oh, I forgot about TWA, the phone companies, and yes, even bananas...

      I'd really like to live in a world where all we have to fix are laws and not human nature.

    33. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You appear to be mislead regarding BT's market dominance, confirm/deny?

    34. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK.

      Well, BT did just announce a significant price increase in a leaflet entitled "great news! evening and weekend calls are now free!" which didn't mention the price increase on pages 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 of the 8-page leaflet.

    35. Re:Frogs in boiling water by EddyPearson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've been forced to allow LLU, which breaks the monopoly somewhat, and they're also compelled to offer competitive prices with their Wholesale packages.

      However, cable companies aside (who are only available in specific areas), BT still own the entire infrastructure, and while they may be complying with the Anti-Trust ruling, they'll still do everything in their power to maintain their dominance.

      You try and start an ISP in the UK, and let me know how far you get without BT's involvement.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    36. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not that people get their personal info sold all over the place, imo the point is that Verizon obfuscates it. Why not send a plain letter out telling people in clear language what they are about to do and THEN see how many people opt out?

    37. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Genda · · Score: 1

      During the disintegration of Richard Nixon, the Republican party lost it's way. Leaders in that party, worked with key business interests and spent over 15 billion dollars with top conservative think tanks to come up with strategies to sell America on the the idea that business needed to be completely deregulated, and that business men needed the freedom to do whatever they pleased. What we saw was a huge PR campaign to win the hearts and minds of Americans, and get the us en masse to legislate our civil liberties away, as we gave corporations more and more power. Ultimately though the hijacking of politics through the increased cost of running a national campaign for any office, corporate America, became the fundamental driving force for electing and reelecting politicians. This leads us to the last 8 years of the best government money can buy.

      Sadly you can regulate and kiss the hinny of something at the same time. The two acts are mutually exclusive. The last 8 years has been an interesting exercise in what America as a fascist regime looks like. What will happen now is anybodies guess. John Q. Public is almost bled dry, and the corpos have sailed the ship of our government straight into the rocks. We'll either pull this thing out of the broiler now, and recover, or we'll find out it's already too late, and go the way other empires before us.

    38. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesnt the US have something similar to deter blatant abuses like this?

      No. That would require congress passing legislation to protect our privacy, and since big companies make so much money from selling our private information, and big companies spend so much money getting people elected to congres...well...you can see where the conflict of interest is. Congressmen aren't going to do ANYTHING that might impact the bank accounts of the companies that pull their strings.

    39. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company pulling this kind of shit wouldnt get 2 steps in the UK.

      Phorm

      Need I say anymore?

    40. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well mine was buried in cement next to Jimmy Hoffa...

    41. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Camann · · Score: 1

      HHGTTG reference. The marketing division of the Sirious Cybernetics Company which made Marvin the Paranoid Android and marketed that type of robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."

      According to the book, the marketing division is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Galactica as "A bunch of jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes." also said that from a copy which fell backward in time to read "... who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."

      From memory, sorry if anything's amiss.

      --
      I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is.
    42. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Camann · · Score: 1

      Dent: "Have you ever considered going into advertising?"

      Otherwise, perfect, thank you.

      --
      I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is.
    43. Re:Frogs in boiling water by angrykoala · · Score: 1

      Now it's just like herding sheep.

      Huh. And I thought it was just like like herding cats. Over-caffeinated, ADD, strung-out, and paranoid cats...

    44. Re:Frogs in boiling water by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay.

      Not exactly true. Fixed prices were introduced by a number of religious dissident groups, notably Quakers (who did so because bargaining often involves lying about what price you will or will not accept), as early as the 1700's.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    45. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been forced to allow LLU, which breaks the monopoly somewhat, and they're also compelled to offer competitive prices with their Wholesale packages.

      However, cable companies aside (who are only available in specific areas), BT still own the entire infrastructure, and while they may be complying with the Anti-Trust ruling, they'll still do everything in their power to maintain their dominance.

      You try and start an ISP in the UK, and let me know how far you get without BT's involvement.

      So why not start a cable company ISP?

    46. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted.

      That's factually incorrect. South Dakota repealed their usury laws to lure the big banks away from NY. Marquette National Bank vs. First of Omaha Corp in 1978 made it so that a bank operating in SD could charge these rates to anyone in the country. That was well before Reagan.

    47. Re:Frogs in boiling water by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

      A good question. You want to start a Cable ISP? You have two options.

      1) Approach Virgin media, the cable Monopoly. They are in pretty much exactly the same position as BT, but with Cable. They own the entire infrastructure, so either become a reseller or see option 2)

      2) Put down the cable yourself. This will cost a few hundred million pounds to get anywhere near the coverage you will need to be competitive. So unless you have a stupid amount of capital to throw at what is really a hit or miss plan, then I don't recommend it.

      Virgin Media also backed Phorm 100%. And why not? it's a real money maker and most customers won't know or care.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    48. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      We believe that we have the right to negotiate the price of those apples or seek apples elsewhere. Reasonable people realise that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to part with anything without a fair exchange. We would only quibble over what constitutes fairness. Maybe you're the one being irrational? Isn't it a bit irrational to expect people not to negotiate for anything at all?

      I negotiated with Verizon based on my perceived value of not having that information exported, $5/month. They declined, I opted out. Sounds exactly like a barter to me!

      We would only quibble over what constitutes fairness.

      Fairness is anything that two parties voluntarily agree to. If you feel that the terms under which I sell my apples are unfair, then you are free to either attempt to convince me to offer different terms or decline them altogether.

      Case in point, I asked a bank teller if one of their fees was reasonable, and she promptly removed it after thinking about it herself. It's okay to want to negotiate.

      Yup, I've done that too.

      Rereading my OP, I can see that I wasn't clear -- I'm not against bartering over terms in any way. What I'm against is the idea that we have the right to forbid Verizon from making agreements such as this one. One of the very distant ancestors of this post mentioned that the UK has some sort of law that does exactly that -- prevents consumers and providers from bartering over the terms of their agreement.

    49. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the summary of the article? Verizon will be selling things like billing info, technical info and location info, among other things.

      Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.

      Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.

      I can name a few thousand people that have signed up between my original post and this one (well, I can't name but I know they exist) so they must evidently think that this isn't such a big deal. I mean, normally when I see another human being, endowed as they are with free will, voluntarily agreeing to a contract, I make the leap of faith that they think the agreement is beneficial to them. That is to say, they think that they gain more in benefit than the cost.

      One of the fallacies that you've engaged in is assuming that you can divorce Verizon's service from their policies, i.e. that you can just rewrite the terms to exclude the objectionable clauses. Of course, such a change would be to your benefit, so too would halving the price and doubling the number of minutes. IOW, I can always imagine how I could change my relationships with others in such a way to be more beneficial to me. Heck, the Chevy dealer can sell me a Corvette for $50 and I would be positively thrilled.

      That's the not the analysis that's required here, however. What's required here is not a discussion of whether other contracts terms could have more benefits or less costs but whether the benefits of the contract as it exists outweigh the costs. If they do, then it's a good deal even if it could possibly be better because, as we've seen, any contract can always get better.

    50. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      What isn't fine is selling service under one set of rules and then changing those rules with little notice (or apparently none if you view your bill online), especially when those changes concern your privacy.

      The original contract spells out very specifically the mechanism by which the parties can amend the terms of the contract. This is the normal state of affairs. For instance, in my contract with my heating-oil company, the price isn't set out in advance but is determined on the date of shipment based on the cost to the company plus a premium. In theory, if the price of oil spikes and I don't call to cancel, I could be in for a huge bill; that result is clearly contemplated by the original contract.

      I will concede this, Verizon should send each customer a real paper letter detailing the changes even if they are signed up for online billing. Such a requirement is in excess of their strict legal obligations (when you agree to online billing, you agree that all such changes will also be delivered electronically) but would still be a good thing to do.

    51. Re:Frogs in boiling water by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      It's small consolation to think your country's government enforces a monopoly on implementation of a surveillance society. But, here's an idea -- go onto Parliament's Web site, sign on to your account, navigate over to your privacy settings, and click the radio button marked "Opt Out."

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    52. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if I own 6 apples, can the supermarket come along and say: "We will sell your apples until you explicitly forbid us to."?

      God damn fucking no.

      In this day and age, information is worth something. And my information is my property. Verizon is selling the property of their customers without asking them. And, to add insult to injury, without even asking!

    53. Re:Frogs in boiling water by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Just think about what you're saying here, dude, isn't it more like:

      "Haha! Yes our Herr Kommandant of our concentration camp is very strict! They couldn't pull any of
      that crap here they would get their teeth knocked out with a rifle butt and a bullet through the
      back of their heads."

      You live in a police state, dude. You are under 24/7 surveillance from the millions of CCTV cameras
      in your country, never mind the phone and internet tapping, and you're telling me your government
      may be poking a camera up your ass but they would never allow a company like Verizon to poke you there.

      Yeah looking at the subject "Frogs in boiling water" you're about done!

    54. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay.

      It's still totally okay. But they'll ring up the marked price anyway.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    55. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Now it's just like herding sheep.

      Which is too bad. It used to be like herding software engineers. Things were better then.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    56. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That was well before Reagan.

      Yeah, but it's a lot more fun to pick on a popular dead guy.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    57. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Sadly our whores....errr politicians sold us out years ago.

      If they were actually whores, at least we'd all have gotten laid.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    58. Re:Frogs in boiling water by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      That was South Dakota, Reagan did that at Federal level. South Dakota =/ United States of America. You can bitch and moan as much as you want, but if the greatest majority of Americans are in deep shit (so much for freedom land) it's thanks to the republicans who are too worried about calling themselves patriotic (from "Patria" = Homeland) and forgetting that the Homeland is the people, not corporate interest. Patriotism is caring about your fellow citizens, something Republicans don't even know where that starts.

    59. Re:Frogs in boiling water by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      No, the Supreme Court did it at the Federal Level, in 1978 in the Marquette decision, which is what I posted and you may want to look it up.

      If you really want you can blame the Banking Act of 1864 for pre-empting state banking regulations, or say that the Banking Act was out of date and Congress should've updated it. The fact that Congress under Reagan didn't do anything about it is by no means unique to Reagan, neither did Carter, either Bush, or Clinton. Actually George H.W. Bush tried to enact a national usury law but dropped it when the stock market dropped in reaction.

      But go ahead and blame Reagan for a Supreme Court decision made 4 years before he took office.

    60. Re:Frogs in boiling water by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed ... we have Congress ...

      Thanks, my nose needed rinsed out with milk, and it has been awhile since I wiped off the keyboard and LCD...

      Glad to be of service.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by dprovine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While people will complain about this now, and talk about switching to Comcast or whoever, what will happen next is that Comcast &c. will do the same thing, and there'll be noplace left to switch to.

    Since it's unlikely there will ever be any sort of sufficient regulation of this behaviour by the government, the obvious solution is for everybody to use VOIP and run TOR. But that's unlikely too.

    1. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by symbolic · · Score: 1

      The solution is to grow a spine. Cut them off. Yes, that means gasp! canceling your service. We've managed to survive for very long periods without cell phones. And we still can. The only difference is a little less convenience.

    2. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      I shudder at the thought of Comcast ever getting into the cell phone business.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I shudder at the thought of Comcast ever getting into the cell phone business.

      Well, I think we have a really good idea. It's called "Sprint".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't carry a cellphone anymore. I hate being 'on call' like that when I'm away.

      one problem, though. have you notice that payphones are almost non-existant now? they are almost impossible to find.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      The barrier for entry into communications is low enough that an alternative can always emerge.

      Don't forget P2P. Power to the people.

      --

      Liberty.

    6. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oligopoly, not oligarchy.

    7. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's unlikely there will ever be any sort of sufficient regulation of this behaviour by the government, the obvious solution is for everybody to use VOIP and run TOR. But that's unlikely too.

      I'd use Tor more if it wasn't so freaking slow.

      The problem I have with VOIP is that it's pretty much the same price or more than what I can pay for a hard-line. Why would I want a less reliable line that costs more?

      Don't get me wrong, I would like to use VOIP and I do for some stuff. Currently I have the cheapest hard-line that you can get (no features, not even caller-id; about $15/mo). Then I have been trying to use SkypeIn/Out as my primary phone. SkypeOut works fine but SkypeIn is unreliable as hell. Very often I miss calls and Skype shows nothing, not even an attempt to call me. The only way I have found to start getting calls again is to sign out then sign back in. Skype is cheaper (about $60/yr for everything) but it has sucked so far. Every other VOIP system I know of costs a lot more. So much more that I could just upgrade my hard-line and use that. I'm trying to save money though.

    8. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by maxume · · Score: 1

      You can activate a net10 phone without giving them any personal info (depending on whether you think that giving them a zip code to activate in is personal info).

      Of course, they will still have a record of your calls and such, but it won't be attached to your name (and even normal people would be pissed off if they found out that their phone company was routinely selling their call history).

      Also, whoever they buy airtime from (I think it is AT&T) is making money.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's sad that this has to be pointed out, but I do understand that it's honestly an odd concept nowadays: You can still carry a cell phone for when you need it and not be "on call" by turning the little sucker off. I get questions sometimes, but when I ask "you got my voicemail, didn't you?" it usually shuts up the inquirer.

      OT, I was going to switch to Verizon this spring, but given the crappy service you get at their stores and now this crap, I'll be sticking with something a little bit more private (pay a friend $20 a month for a "family plan" cell phone on a different network. Even if the same data is tracked, it poisons the information pool a bit by having mis-association with owner/activity).

    10. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Nokia phones used to have a fantastic feature, though I'm sure they could now (or indeed any phones). You could add Contacts into Groups (no surprise there, fairly common) and set "Selective Diversion". I had my phone set up so friends could call 24/7, but calls from a work number outside 8-8 were automatically diverted to voicemail. It wasn't perfect, if I recall, as it was being done by the handset, not the network, so you might get the occasional half-ring before diversion, but was a nice way of managing this.

    11. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The

      technical

      barrier for entry into communications is low enough that an alternative can always emerge.

      Don't forget P2P. Power to the people.

      The legal barriers are somewhat different.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I don't carry a cellphone anymore. I hate being 'on call' like that when I'm away.

      You can opt to shut off your cell phone, disable the ringer, or just don't pick it up when it rings, at any time you like.

      More importantly, though... Cell phones can be CHEAPER than a land-line, and it can be quite difficult to find a VoIP solution that is notably less expensive than a cell.

      one problem, though. have you notice that payphones are almost non-existant now? they are almost impossible to find.

      Yes. As people use them less, the pay-phone companies jacked up their prices, setting a very high minimum monthly fee which is very unlikely to be covered by the small number of calls... Really... the exact OPPOSITE of what they SHOULD be doing when business gets bad, and have put the nails in their own coffin.

      Solution: Get a pre-paid cell phone for the rare occasions you need to make a call, and leave it turned off otherwise (much longer battery life that way).

      Most pre-paid carriers require you to purchase ~$10 of "minutes" every 90 days to keep your phone active. But I bet most people will need more than 1 minutes of talk time per-day, anyhow, and if not, they roll-over with most carriers, so you can use several months' worth of pre-paid time all at once when some emergency (or non-emergency) comes up. $40/year ($3.40/month) isn't too bad for basic phone service that you can use anywhere, even as just an insurance policy if you never use it. Did you always have coins on you when you really needed to make a call? I know I didn't...

      If you want a cell just for REAL emergencies, then you don't even need to active it or buy minutes, as you will ALWAYS be able to call 911 if the phone works at all.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      You know, you can just turn off your phone when you don't want to receive calls, and screen them when you do want to receive calls. It's not rocket science, I do it all the time. If it's important, they'll leave a message.

    14. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      I'd use Tor more if it wasn't so freaking slow.

      Help out. Run an exit node! :)

    15. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't carry a cellphone anymore. I hate being 'on call' like that when I'm away.

      Two words: Caller ID.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, just FYI I have AT&T's Callvantage service. Never had a problem with it, the feature set is really nice (I like getting emails with my messages as WAV file attachments) and it's $24.95/month. International rates are competitive as well. For example, my girlfriend is from Lagos, and Comcast Digital Voice wanted about $3.50 a fucking minute. Callvantage wants fifteen cents. Calling anywhere in the U.S., Canada and a number of U.S. territories is free.

      They also have a softphone that runs on your PC, but I haven't tried that. I just connected the D-Link interface to the punchdown block in my utility room and all the phones in the house work fine.

      There's also that Magic Jack gadget that I've seen marketed on TV all the time. One of the engineers at work has one, says it works great. Cheap too, about twenty bucks for a whole year.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  6. How to fight back against them? by rolfwind · · Score: 0, Redundant

    As a customer, I find this absolutely disgusting. These type of things should be opt in if anything.

  7. Standard Fare for CC Companies by SaxIndustries · · Score: 3, Insightful
    CC companies do this kinda stuff all the time. You get a letter of an upcoming policy change, and you throw it out not even bothering to read it, since your options are usually A) Agree to the new terms, or B) Pay off and close your account.

    I guess what I'm saying is, I've lost all faith in large companies to do the right thing. After I saw my tax dollars pay CEOs large bonuses, I just gave up. Game's over man.

    Of course, this happens right as people start forgetting about how much Verizon sucks at math.

    1. Re:Standard Fare for CC Companies by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yup, exactly. "You may opt out of this change." With fine print (or maybe not even then, but a followup letter, "By opting out of this change, we have exercised our right to close your account. All balances are now due and payable in full within 14 days."

      The other sneaky one, "Your payment of your next bill indicates your acceptance of the changes to the Terms and Conditions outlined in this letter". Wow. Nice. I guess "Agree to these changes, or watch us fuck your credit score" might be likely to alienate too many people outright.

    2. Re:Standard Fare for CC Companies by initialE · · Score: 1

      Give up? Fight back man! The more you give in the more they will take from you. Learn a bit from your president, he never gave up hope.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    3. Re:Standard Fare for CC Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other sneaky one, "Your payment of your next bill indicates your acceptance of the changes to the Terms and Conditions outlined in this letter". Wow. Nice. I guess "Agree to these changes, or watch us fuck your credit score" might be likely to alienate too many people outright.

      Or, don't carry a CC balance, as in pay it off each month prior to the due date. Then there's no reason for them to fuck their credit score when the account closes. This is called living within your means.

  8. Least they'l tell you by moniker127 · · Score: 1

    AT&T just assumes that you WANT to share your name, address, email, social, call length, call content, text messages, voice mail, and shoe size with the world. If you aren't into sharing information, why would you have a cell phone? Bizuhhhh.

  9. If you are in an area that works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for boost mobile, geez, 50 bucks a month for unlimited yakking, texting and data, via more or less anonymous prepaid, no contract, no "plans" other than that, no hidden fees or anything, and they pay the tax! Ya, the phone selection right now is still crappy, but I bet that will get better, they are getting new customers like crazy. I have a verizon wireless account now and will be switching shortly, it is an obvious no brainer at this point if you can deal with a limited selection of phones.

    1. Re:If you are in an area that works... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      it is an obvious no brainer at this point if you can deal with a limited selection of phones.

      I dunno, man ... what's a true geek to do without his Android G1?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:If you are in an area that works... by Consul · · Score: 1

      >I dunno, man ... what's a true geek to do without his Android G1?

      Get a phone with more than 3 hours of battery life?

      Don't get me wrong. I really want a G1, but the moment I heard about the battery life, I decided to pass on it.

      --

      -----

      "You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."

    3. Re:If you are in an area that works... by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      The battery life really isn't that bad, unless you keep on the GPS. But even dedicated GPS devices don't run on battery for more than 4 or 5 hours. I can get 2 days out of a single charge (low talk and internet), leaving 3g on but only using WiFi when I need it. I guess I don't use it for music or games which would probably suck the battery down, but really why do you need more than 8 hours of heavy usage time?

      Plus when I go biking, skiing, or hiking I take a Nokia cheapo (I got for 10$) and slap my sim card in there. Beats the crap out of an iPhone.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
  10. Which Verizon? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

    I haven't read through the full article yet, but I'm assuming they're talking about Verizon Wireless. Or does this spill down to those of us using Verizon DSL service, too?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:Which Verizon? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Replying to myself. Looks like it is Verizon Wireless. But it also looks like it's fairly easy to opt out of. You can either do it through your settings on the Verizon Wireless website, or via phone at 1-800-333-9956.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Which Verizon? by JDHannan · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that My Verizon is temporarily unavailable is the prevailing response from verizonwireless.com

    3. Re:Which Verizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I logged into my verizon wireless... as the poster stated, the document is "unavailable". When you click the link it mentions about the document is too old, and you have to call some 800# to access documents over 6 months old. Either this document has been around for a while without anyone noticing, or their site is lying

    4. Re:Which Verizon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thanks, I just did this. I had to log in, go to "My Profile" scroll down to the "Phone Controls" section, and then click the "View/Edit Privacy(CPNI) Settings"

      As noted in the summary, the message center listed the Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice as Not Available.

    5. Re:Which Verizon? by yuna49 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nor does it seem to apply to my land-line phone or television services over FiOS. I don't see any settings in my Verizon account that relate to the issues discussed here.

  11. *grumble* by j2210 · · Score: 1

    What is it with companies and selling personal information these days? I guess it's time for me to switch to another carrier and tell everyone I know who's on Verizon to do the same. I just switched to Verizon a few weeks ago, too.

    1. Re:*grumble* by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What is it with companies and selling personal information these days?

      You answered your own question: money. As long as millions upon millions of not-particularly-bright people insist on buying useless stuff that advertisers tell them they absolutely must own, our personal information will continue to be valuable. Me, I quite pointedly a. don't watch advertising and b. will not buy anything from an advertisement to which I might accidentally find myself exposed.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  12. It possibly suggests by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That Verizon perhaps has already been doing this information sharing. They just want to stop getting penalized for various marketing activities they undertake.

    And court rulings that affirm the new regulations requiring opt-in consent.

    So the new regulations are finally making them take notice and be more forthcoming about when they share proprietary information??

    Verizon might be on the hot seat right now, but, I won't be surprised if notices like Verizon's or similar agreements start being seen from other carriers.

    1. Re:It possibly suggests by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      And court rulings that affirm the new regulations requiring opt-in consent.

      With regard to that, the opt-out concept described in TFA fails to help them. It seems Verizon management wants to be slapped around in court some more ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    2. Re:It possibly suggests by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Perhaps... next up is probably some whacky argument, like "by paying the bill and returning the bill stub that that contained that message, the customer actually chose to opt-in", by taking the affirmative action of sending a cheque.

  13. My information? by m1ss1ontomars2k4 · · Score: 1

    I refuse to let them share it! How did they even get my information in the first place? I'm not one of their customers!

  14. Dah? by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

    Of course they do and the only thing that kept them from doing it before was the fear of a backlash from their customers.

    1. Re:Dah? by maitai · · Score: 2, Informative

      They've been doing it for a long time, when I signed up with Verizon in November it came with a piece of paper telling about the information sharing and how to opt out. This article seems at least 5 months to late.

      Also, I did get a letter in December about it (but I'd opted out when I first signed up).

      Personally, I give them kudos for even notifying me (at the signing of the contract even), and more so for the option to opt out (I've had other companies notify me, but no opt-out option, and it's rare that a company even notifies you, they just sell it).

  15. I found it: by nukeade · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you are a Verizon Wireless customer like me, the number to call to opt out is given in the actual legal document, here:

    http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?contentType=Legal%20Notice&textId=181

    It takes about two minutes.

    ~Ben

    1. Re:I found it: by kevlarz3 · · Score: 1

      You can also opt out on-line. Took me a while to find where, but if you login to your account https://login.verizonwireless.com/amserver/UI/Login/. The link is under My Profile -> Phone Controls. Under that section you'll find a link labeled "View/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settings". Clicking that allows to opt out.

      --
      This sig brought to you by... DefCon Owl Traps Kills Owls Dead.
    2. Re:I found it: by Xayma · · Score: 2, Informative
      In typical legalese fashion the letter contains contradictions:

      Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 30 days of us providing notice to you in your bill or through the mail, we will assume that you give us the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above.

      Q4. How do I give my consent to share CPNI? A. Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 45 days of receiving this letter, we will assume that you give us the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies described above.

      Its only a 50% difference after all.

    3. Re:I found it: by eigor40 · · Score: 1

      _Thanks_ for posting that link. Saved me a lot of fussing, and I didn't have to ask my spouse if he threw out all the crap that came with our last VZW bill. You can opt out for all cell #s on the same account with just the one phone call.

    4. Re:I found it: by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they don't ignore these opt-outs.. These corporations have absolutely no morals, and how are you going to *know* if they sell your info anyway, despite you having opted out?? I've never had a cellphone contract with any of these criminal companies.. I use a pay-as-you-go Virginmobile phone for the few calls I make/take.. But if I did have a contract with these imbiciles, I'd drop them like a hot potato....

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    5. Re:I found it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I don't get even more magazine and credit card offers from the maryid of other companies that sell my info?

    6. Re:I found it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your privacy is important to us."

      That's why if you don't call within 30 days after receiving notice, we'll assume it's cool for us to share all that privacy stuff with anyone of our choosing

  16. Verizon does stupid stuff all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for Verizon DSL as technical support agent. I've seen so many dumb policies it makes my head spin. So this one is no surprise. There is a department at Verizon that it's sole job is to create new policies and processes, no matter how stupid they are. I hate Verizon As much as you do, luckily I'm in Canada and never have to deal with them as a consumer.

    p.S. If you require a technician to come out to fix your DSL line, consider yourself lucky if they actually show up on the day they were suppose to (and if they fix it when they do show up)and don't yell at the Agent on the phone (overseas agents are allowed, We hate them too.) when you call in to find out why he didn't show up the next day. We don't know either.

  17. its not 'share' its SELL by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    dammit.

    file 'sharing' is wrong. or so we're told.

    but DATA sharing, if done by multi million corps - that's ok. yeah....

    its not sharing, its SELLING.

    orwell was right - you can control thoughts via language. give words an incorrect meaning or redefine them and you're halfway there.

    similarly, copying bits is not THEFT but copyright violation. again, manipulating our words to make things not quite what they really are.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:its not 'share' its SELL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Sort of like drawing a bogus analogy between information that is created to be distributed and information that is considered to be private.

    2. Re:its not 'share' its SELL by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Sort of like drawing a bogus analogy between information that is created to be distributed and information that is considered to be private.

      Not really. On the one hand, large corporations are upset because people are distributing their information without proper authorization. On the other, people are upset because large corporations are distributing their information without proper authorization.

      Not so bogus when you get right down to it, and the fact that we consider said information to be "private" doesn't mean that it is. It matters what the law says. I mean, when it comes to content distribution, under U.S. law it's pretty clear that the copyright holder owns that data, and has the right to authorize (or not authorize) distribution of said materials.

      Verizon's behavior is an issue because the matter is not so clear-cut. In fact, the real question here is this: who owns the database records that these companies maintain? I mean, if it truly is our data, then we own it, and Verizon can take their extra revenue stream and stuff it. However, if it's not, if the corp owns "our" data, or it's just a matter of public record, then we either deal with that fact or don't use a cell phone.

      The law really needs to clarify this. Maybe it already has, I don't know. But giving out this kind of information is only going to hurt people (identity theft and worse) and really shouldn't be allowed, period. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it should be illegal for a business to record any information about its customers that is not absolutely required to provide the purchased service. That means you don't ask for my SS number for a start.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  18. Opt out of the sharing or my contract? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I can opt out of my phone contract without penalty? I've been looking for a way to get on to a proper GSM carrier without paying the early termination fee. Or does it just mean I can opt out of the data sharing?

    1. Re:Opt out of the sharing or my contract? by momfreeek · · Score: 1

      Go on, spend a few seconds imagining the conversation as you phone them to accept their kind offer.

    2. Re:Opt out of the sharing or my contract? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. The sharing of your data doesn't make a material difference to the contract. If anything they would probably claim it saves you money, as "they pass the savings on to you" (hahaha).

    3. Re:Opt out of the sharing or my contract? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean I can opt out of my phone contract without penalty? I've been looking for a way to get on to a proper GSM carrier without paying the early termination fee. Or does it just mean I can opt out of the data sharing?

      No, you can't opt out of your phone contract! There's a web link, and an 800 number, to opt out of CPNI. I'm really not sure how this was made out as a new thing, I opted out almost 2 years ago.

  19. Good for the private investigator industry by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Become an "affiliate or agent" of Verizon, and you won't need to use ruses like "pretexting" to get the phone records of your targets.

    Good for employers, too, who want to check up on the private calls that its employees make with their own phones.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Good for the private investigator industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you have not read Verizon Wireless' contracts lately.

      About 5 years ago I signed up for the discount vzw offers to employees of various companies ... about a year ago vzw f-ed up and deleted it from my account but said all I had to do to get it back was re-signup using the current version of the paperwork.

      The newer versions of the corporate discount paperwork include a clause that wasn't in the old version: you explicitly agree that vzw may share your phone billing records with your employer.

      That's a lot more data than these old-ass, resurrected for discussion just because some idiot on the Internet finally learned to read and noticed the already-done deal, CPIN agreement allows vzw to share.

  20. Direct link to opt out by fructose · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had to go through 3 websites/blogs before I got the direct link. So if you have Verizon and want to opt out directly, here you go.

    https://ebillpay.verizonwireless.com/vzw/accountholder/profile/CPNISettings.action

    1. Re:Direct link to opt out by saur2004 · · Score: 1

      Once you do, make sure you take a snapshot image so verizon doesn't have any wiggle room. I have that picture saved now.

    2. Re:Direct link to opt out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did anyone else notice that in the top of the letter, it states:

      Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 30 days of us providing notice to you in your bill or through the mail, we will assume that you give us the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies as described above

      Then later in the letter, says this:

      Q4. How do I give my consent to share CPNI?

      A. Unless you provide us with notice that you wish to opt out within 45 days of receiving this letter, we will assume that you give us the right to share your CPNI with the authorized companies described above.

      It really makes me wonder if they're going to honor their own opt-out, since they can't get their own timetable straight.

  21. Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon isn't any sleazier than the rest of them. The only thing that happened here is the FCC required the carriers to provide consumers with a way to opt out of the "sharing" of their data. All the carriers have to do this not just Verizon. I can say for sure that the process is essentially identical for both Verizon and ATT, login and change your privacy settings under your profile. Works for both, pretty much painless.

  22. Compromise by Renraku · · Score: 1

    I guaran-fucking-tee you that even if you canceled your account today, that the information would still be stored and shared by Verizon.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  23. Needs to stop, and it's not just Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Several years ago, my local PBS station was begging for donations. I was about to call in and donate $50 when they said they would give you a 1-year subscription to Fast Company magazine if you dontated $60, so that's what I did. A few days later, I got a postcard in the mail thanking me for my donation and saying I would receive my subscription shortly, but my name was misspelled in a unique way. I never received a single issue of the magazine, but I got several solicitations from various charities with the same misspelling.

    A message to all corporations and non-profits: If someone gives you money for a donation, service, or product, be thankful for it and treat them with an ounce of respect instead of turning around and screwing them for a few extra pennies by selling their personal info.

    P.S. I never gave another penny to PBS again.

    1. Re:Needs to stop, and it's not just Verizon by terryducks · · Score: 1

      and what did they say when you called and complained ?

      oh thats right you didn't

  24. This isn't new by Mugsy69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The court case resulting from the 2007 FCC regs requiring consumers to be able to opt to not have their information shared was finally decided on 2/19. That's what caused this notice to be sent. For more information check out this link to the EPIC website: http://epic.org/privacy/cpni/. It includes links to opt out for both Verizon and SBC.

    1. Re:This isn't new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK something doesn't track. The EPIC website you cite above clearly states that the court decided on February 13th that consumers must OPT-IN to have their data shared, not that they can be required to OPT-OUT of data sharing. Verizon is requiring that they OPT-OUT of data sharing, which appears to go against what the court decided. Am I misreading the EPIC site?

    2. Re:This isn't new by XorNand · · Score: 1

      For the lazy: Call (866) 483-9600 to opt out with Verizon. It's automated and you'll need the the primary phone number on the account, the account name, plus you'll have to leave voicemail that states the primary name on the account, billing address, the name of the caller, and a callback number for the caller. It seems that they're determined to make this as painful as possible.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
  25. not Verizon by syrinx · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is not about Verizon. It is about Verizon Wireless, which is a completely separate company (half owned by Verizon and half owned by Vodafone).

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:not Verizon by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Ah! So it's only HALF about Verizon.

      Your explanation doesn't get Verizon off the hook, it merely dilutes the blame. And it doesn't dilute it enough. I believe they would need to hold less than 20% of the stock (I forget how much less) to not be considered culpable were this a suit.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:not Verizon by syrinx · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not trying to let Verizon off the hook. I logged into my Verizon account and tried to find information about this and couldn't, and eventually realized that it's not about them. I don't have a Verizon Wireless cell phone, so I only have to worry about every other telecom company selling my information, not VW. :)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    3. Re:not Verizon by unitron · · Score: 1

      This is not about Verizon. It is about Verizon Wireless...

      So which one bought Alltel, and are Alltel customers who opted out with Alltel going find themselves "stealth opted-in"?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:not Verizon by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      Like Syrinx, I was puzzled to not find anything on my Verizon account pages like the screensots in Gozmodo's article, or like the descriptions here.

      I receive paper bills, but pay on-line. I had no written notification, Verizon says I have no messages pending, and I couldn't find anything about sharing CNPI on the website...

      Now I know why.

      Gizmodo, Slashdot, I want those ten minutes of my life back, you insensitive clods!

      K.

    5. Re:not Verizon by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This is not about Verizon. It is about Verizon Wireless...

      So which one bought Alltel, and are Alltel customers who opted out with Alltel going find themselves "stealth opted-in"?

      Alltel spun off its land-line and DSL services to Windstream, so since Alltel itself is completely wireless now, it's probably Verizon Wireless.

      And it's also likely this change is so that this information can be shared with their new Alltel holdings as the merger gets underway and they converge to one billing system.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  26. verizon's leet math skills by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    There are slashdotters who still use Verizon? Despite their well-publicized math skills? I'm amazed.

    (Best line: "that's a matter of opinion, sir". Referring to the result of a simple arithmetic calculation.)

    1. Re:verizon's leet math skills by game+kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The alternative, in my case (for the internet anyway - I don't use Verizon Wireless or any other cellphones), are anticompetitive, anticonsumer, annoying (or worse) scum.

      Sorry, I gotta take potential bad math over such evil.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  27. I don't see this as news by maitai · · Score: 1

    When I signed up for Verizon Wireless in November the contract came with a page about their information sharing and how to opt out (which I did on the day I signed up). Plus I got another letter about it in December. So this is old news.

    Companies sell your personally information all the time, I give props to Verizon to at least notifying me and giving me the option to opt out of it. I've had one other company (I forget it's name) tell me they were selling my personal information without any opt out option, how many others just sell it outright? (note, the one I work for)

    So I don't see how this is a big deal (even 5 months late at the least) when it takes 2 minutes or so to opt out.

    Now I'm going to go read more of my mail addressed to be offering magazine subscriptions and credit cards...

    1. Re:I don't see this as news by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      You can bet your life they don't notify you out of the goodness of their hearts.. they only notify you because their ass is in a sling by the FCC...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  28. Nothing has changed by Itsallmyfault · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just a rehash of a similar instance last year? IIRC, I logged into my account @ Verizon last year and set my 'Opt out'. Just checked again and it's still 'Don't Share My CPNI'. So they've updated their TOS... NOT news.

  29. But they told Congress... by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    So they apparently lied to congress:
    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-Try-To-Prevent-New-Opt-In-Only-Privacy-Law-97991

    Verizon statement before Congress:

    Verizon believes that before a company captures certain Internet-usage data for targeted or customized advertising purposes, it should obtain meaningful, affirmative consent from consumers." To get that meaningful consent, Tauke said, requires a) explaining to consumers exactly what kind of data are being collected and for what; b) treating a failure to consent as meaning no collection of data for "online behavioral marketing"; and c) consumers' ability to easily opt out if they initially agree but change their minds.

    I shocked. Shocked! I tell you...

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:But they told Congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, people! This article IS NOT about Verizon as an ISP. This is purely about the cell phone provider branch of Verizon. Think you can keep that straight in your little peabrains?

    2. Re:But they told Congress... by icebike · · Score: 1

      You really think there is a difference?

      What make believe world do you live in?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:But they told Congress... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      The one where Verizon is so incompetent that they can't find their own ass with a map.

      What world do you live in where you think that crazy large companies formed out of mergers with disparate functions are 'the same company'? They can't even manage to get their billing (omg super package!) right between services.

      I hate Verizon as much as the next guy (overpriced DSL with no servers, super shitty phone service, etc - though I might change my mind if they rollout FiOS!) but it doesn't take any great thinking to realize that they aren't competent enough.

      Like the problem with conspiracy theories. The basic problem is 'they' aren't that competent.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:But they told Congress... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Except this is about Verizon Wireless the cellular carrier, not Verizon the ISP.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    5. Re:But they told Congress... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Same company.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=VZ

      Really, I can't believe you were unaware of this!!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:But they told Congress... by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      Verizon Wireless is a joint venture, 55% owned by Verizon Communications (the landline/Internet company) and 45% owned by Vodafone (the UK-based cellular provider).

      --
      End of Line.
    7. Re:But they told Congress... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You really think there is a difference?

      What make believe world do you live in?

      The two divisions are governed by substantially different bodies of regulation. That's the difference.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  30. "Can you hear me now. Good. You're Fired.... by leftie · · Score: 1

    ...I'm switching to Qwest."

    Qwest isn't going to share my personal info, and didn't allow the Bush/Cheney and the GOP to tap my phone lines.

    1. Re:"Can you hear me now. Good. You're Fired.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you 10 years old, or what? Did you completely miss all the controversy over Echelon and other programs for tapping communications during Clinton's term? The GOP has no monopoly on spying on you.

    2. Re:"Can you hear me now. Good. You're Fired.... by leftie · · Score: 1

      Fail, dumbass.

      Bush/Cheney and the GOP are the only ones to install taps on the communication networks inside the United States.

      ECHELON is a foreign intelligence gathering system. It was not built in the United States. They can't intercept communications inside the United States even if they want to. The dishes aren't built in the right place to intercept communications signals inside the US.

      "Inside Echelon

      Duncan Campbell 25.07.2000
      The history, structure und function of the global surveillance system known as Echelon

      Since 1998, much has been written and spoken about the so-called Echelon system of international communications surveillance. Most of what has been written has been denied or ignored by US and European authorities. But much of what has been written has also been exaggerated or wrong. Amongst a sea of denials, obfuscations and errors, confusion has reigned. This review by Duncan Campbell, author of the European Parliament's 1999 "Interception Capabilities 2000" report[1] , is intended to help clear up the confusion, to say what Echelon is (and isn't), where it came from and what it does. Echelon, or systems like it, will be with us a long time to come.

      Echelon is a system used by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept and process international communications passing via communications satellites. It is one part of a global surveillance systems that is now over 50 years old. Other parts of the same system intercept messages from the Internet, from undersea cables, from radio transmissions, from secret equipment installed inside embassies, or use orbiting satellites to monitor signals anywhere on the earth's surface. The system includes stations run by Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in addition to those operated by the United States. Although some Australian and British stations do the same job as America's Echelon sites, they are not necessarily called "Echelon" stations. But they all form part of the same integrated global network using the same equipment and methods to extract information and intelligence illicitly from millions of messages every day, all over the world.

      The first reports about Echelon in Europe[2] credited it with the capacity to intercept "within Europe, all e-mail, telephone, and fax communications". This has proven to be erroneous; neither Echelon nor the signals intelligence ("sigint") system of which it is part can do this. Nor is equipment available with the capacity to process and recognise the content of every speech message or telephone call. But the American and British-run network can, with sister stations, access and process most of the worlds satellite communications, automatically analysing and relaying it to customers who may be continents away.

      The world's most secret electronic surveillance system has its main origin in the conflicts of the Second World War. In a deeper sense, it results from the invention of radio and the fundamental nature of telecommunications. The creation of radio permitted governments and other communicators to pass messages to receivers over transcontinental distances. But there was a penalty - anyone else could listen in. Previously, written messages were physically secure (unless the courier carrying them was ambushed, or a spy compromised communications). The invention of radio thus created a new importance for cryptography, the art and science of making secret codes. It also led to the business of signals intelligence, now an industrial scale activity. Although the largest surveillance network is run by the US NSA, it is far from alone. Russia, China, France and other nations operate worldwide networks. Dozens of advanced nations use sigint as a key source of intelligence. Even smaller European nations such as Denmark, the Netherlands or Switzerland have recently constructed small, Echelon-like stations to obtain and process intelligence by eavesdropping on civil satellite communications...."

      http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html

  31. C'mon guys, help me legalese this up: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beta version of a letter to be mailed to one of the higher ups - I'm sure I can get an address from 411.com:

    Dear Valued Service Provider,

                  We would like to inform you that, in light of your recently established opt-out policy concerning the transfer of personal information, we've begun persuing an alternate business model involving the sale and small-scale manufacture of genetic samples and engineering equipment.

                  Our model of collecting said samples was inspired largely in part by your new policy, and in the spirit of cooperation, we'd like to begin with Verizon - it is as follows: our Data Collections agents will enter the dwellings of your employees under the cover of dark and scrape corneal epithelial cells from the surfaces of their eyes.

                  If your employees would not like to participate in our Data Collection Program, they have 45 days to mail an opt-out form to our Buffalo, NY headquarters.

    Sincerely,
    [name]
    [company]

  32. How to opt-out by Drantin · · Score: 1

    After signing in to My Verizon (the online account management page) click on the My Profile tab, In the Phone Controls section there's a link titled "View/Edit Privacy(CPNI) Settings" Direct link for people logged in.

    --
    Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  33. Buy n Large disclaimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just adopt the Buy n' Large disclaimer now and save themselves a few steps in subsequent years?

  34. But they block GPS in the name of Privacy by krelvin · · Score: 1

    Funny how Verizon blocks the GPS chip in many of their phones with the statement that they are protecting their customers Privacy from 3rd party applications which might exploit their location, yet they give out my private information to anybody who gives them a buck.

  35. CPNI by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

    CPNI approval is used by the telecoms to allow them to treat your entire account (landline, internet, long distance, wireless, etc.) as one account. Without CPNI approval the telecom will treat each one of those things as belonging to separate companies (since the silly laws have made the telecoms into several companies to provide these services.)

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  36. opt out by suraklin · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the comments at Gizmodo there was a post that explained how to opt out from your web account

    Sign in to the Verizon website.
    - On the red bar near the top, hover over "My Verizon." Click on "My Profile." (Don't go over to the sub-menu that pops up.)
    - In the second section down, under Phone Controls, there's a link to "View/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settings." Click on that.
    - Voila! Click on the button that says "Don't share my CPNI." Remember to hit the save button before you leave.

  37. Not as big a deal as it seems. by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1
    I am a Verizon customer and I have opted out of sharing CPNI. I don't know what the new privacy statements are, my privacy policy hasn't been updated in the last six months, but I bet it has to do with CPNI. Here is the section from VZW's customer agreement.

    What is confusing is whether "personal information" is limited to Name, number, address, etc, or also includes CPNI (the non-identifiable info).

    Your Privacy â" IMPORTANT INFORMATION â" PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING YOUR PURCHASE DECISION

    In the course of providing services to you, we may collect certain information that is made available to us solely by virtue of our relationship with you, such as information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination and amount of your use of the telecommunications services you purchase. This information and related billing information is known as Customer Proprietary Network Information, or CPNI. (CPNI does not include your name, address and wireless phone number.) Further, except as provided in this agreement, we won't intentionally share personal information about you without your permission. SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING, WE MAY USE AND SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND HOW YOU USE ANY OF OUR SERVICES: (A) SO WE CAN PROVIDE OUR GOODS OR SERVICES TO YOU; (B) SO OTHERS CAN PROVIDE GOODS OR SERVICES TO US OR TO YOU ON OUR BEHALF; (C) SO WE OR OUR AFFILIATES IN THE VERIZON FAMILY OF COMPANIES CAN COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ABOUT GOODS OR SERVICES THAT ANY OF US OFFER; (D) TO PROTECT OURSELVES; OR (E) AS REQUIRED BY LAW, LEGAL PROCESS OR EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

    IN ADDITION, WE MAY INCLUDE OUR OWN OR THIRDâ"PARTY ADVERTISING IN THE SERVICES YOU PURCHASE FROM US, AND WE MAY COLLECT NONâ"PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR USE OF THOSE SERVICES. WE MAY SHARE THAT NONâ"PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION WITH OTHER VERIZON COMPANIES, VENDORS AND THIRD PARTIES TO PROVIDE RELEVANT ADVERTISING. IF YOU DO NOT WANT US TO COLLECT OR USE SUCH NONâ"PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION FOR THIS PURPOSE, YOU SHOULD NOT USE OUR SERVICES; BY USING THE SERVICES, YOU EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE US TO USE YOUR INFORMATION FOR THIS PURPOSE.

  38. Make it cost Verizon to do this... by m6ack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Follow these instructions:

    1) Call Verizon.
    2) Have the representative explain "CPNI."
    3) Ask a couple of questions.
    4) Ask the representative to OPT-OUT of all your phones.

    You have just cost Verizon Wireless about $20.00 for that call.

    1. Re:Make it cost Verizon to do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you keep the poor indian callcenter worker on the phone for 10 hours i doubt it'd cost them more than a few pennies.

    2. Re:Make it cost Verizon to do this... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Follow these instructions:

      1) Call Verizon. 2) Have the representative explain "CPNI." 3) Ask a couple of questions. 4) Ask the representative to OPT-OUT of all your phones.

      You have just cost Verizon Wireless about $20.00 for that call.

      I don't even have Verizon and I think I'd like to call them and try to opt out anyway.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  39. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://policyblog.verizon.com/policyblog/blogs/policyblog/jimgerace9/381/verizonwirelesscommentoncpni.aspx

    Old news, this was going on in 2007

  40. I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have prepaid service through T-Mobile, and I never have to worry about this sort of thing.

    Why?

    Because all they have on me is a name and a birth date. No address. No social security number. No drivers license number. No credit card number. Nothing. In fact, when I set up the phone they didn't ask for any proof of the validity of the birth date, nor if the name was even mine.

    I can buy more minutes at any of their locations, paying cash, to ensure total anonymity.

    It costs ten cents a minute. And ten cents a text too. But since I am not prone to lengthy or frequent phone conversations, I still wind up paying significantly less than I would for the cheapest monthly rate of any carrier.

    I recommend it.

    1. Re:I dunno by tirefire · · Score: 1

      Word. My whole family uses T-Mobile prepaid phones. We even looked at the "family plans" the big evil phone companies offered. It was still cheaper for us to just get individual prepaid phones and use those. If you don't feel the need to yak yak yak all the time then prepaid is great. The cost/minute ratio is not as good as the plans where you buy an ungodly amount of minutes for a fixed monthly rate, but that's only if you actually USE all the minutes those people give you.

    2. Re:I dunno by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Not all prepaid services are 10c/minute/text - many are closer to $0.25-$1.00 a minute. Moreover, T-Mobile's service is shit damn near everywhere I've went. I've had my T-Mobile phone pretty much all over New England and I can't ever remember seeing 4 bars. I'd occasionally get 3.

  41. How about EU-style data protection? by golodh · · Score: 1
    I'm becoming sick of it. Every commercial Tom Dick and Harry seems to take it onto himself to "share" (read "sell") whatever part of our personal data they can lay their hands on with absolutely anyone (who pays enough to become an "affiliate").

    And this isn't about name, address, age, gender information either. It's everything an ISP can figure out about you without actually reading your email.

    Who needs this ? (except companies selling off your details and other companies using it to spam you and/or to flood your mailbox with advertising junk). How about introducing some EU-style dataprotection?

    1. Re:How about EU-style data protection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about introducing some EU-style dataprotection?

      Two arguments against:

      1 - it would mean admitting the EU was right
      2 - it would mean turning back the clock on all the agencies poking in your life already, or exposing that they will be exempt. Both are not good news for a nation that pretends to be about freedom and democracy, and that myth must be kept alive at all costs.

    2. Re:How about EU-style data protection? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      How about introducing some EU-style dataprotection?

      Two arguments against:

      1 - it would mean admitting the EU was right 2 - it would mean turning back the clock on all the agencies poking in your life already, or exposing that they will be exempt. Both are not good news for a nation that pretends to be about freedom and democracy, and that myth must be kept alive at all costs.

      1. They were. That fact was obvious from the start (this was just another "give them an inch and they'll take the whole damn yard" scenario anyway. Or is that centimeter and meter?) Surprise, big corporations can't be trusted. Who knew?

      2. The United States' various governments are barred, in many areas, from collecting and storing personal data on their citizens. They're not barred from buying or extorting that information from private aggregators, so there's no motivation to restrict what the private sector can do. So yeah, you're right. The Feds aren't likely to do much about this anytime soon.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  42. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Private sector companies in the USA already share your private data, they just can not link the data to actual people. The information is thus (unique personal identification number(upid)) organized. How do you think statics and other demographic information, charts, studies are created? When was the last time you gave someones conscent to use your iPhone, Internet, Starbucks, etc buying habits?

  43. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWSFLASH: CPNI is nothing new, and has been around for quite some time

  44. Mod parent up! by ppz003 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the easy to use info. Now I wonder how long it will take for the setting to take effect.

  45. And this is bad, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can somebody answer why exactly this is supposed to be bad?

    sharing is good.

  46. Or do it online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Login to verizonwireless.com
    Go to My Profile link
    Go to "View/Edit Privacy(CPNI) Settings" a little down the page
    Turn all the radio buttons to the don't share position ...
    Profit!

  47. That was not easy by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 3, Informative
    First, when I logged in I browsed to the "Message Center". Most of the contract documents, including the "Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice" were unavailable. The reason they gave was:

    Your Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice is available to view online if executed within the last 6 months.

    After about 5 minutes of browsing I found how to get Verizon to stop sharing my personal calling information. The steps to change the setting are as follows:

    1. Login to the account.
    2. Click on "My Profile"
    3. Scroll down to the "Phone Controls" section.
    4. Click on "View/Edit Privacy(CPNI) Settings".
    5. The privacy settings give you the option of changing permissions for a individual phone numbers or all phone numbers. Change the value from the default "OK to Share My CPNI" to "Don't Share My CPNI"
    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  48. Another phone company doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawaiian Telcom notified me of a similar opt-out to share billing and call information. The difference was that they gave me only 30 days to act, not 45.

    Is this legal?

  49. isn't opt-out illegal now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't get it - some of the comments above say that there is a law that requires this sort of thing to be opt-in but this is clearly opt-out.

    if this is the case, in america, this will no doubt lead to a class-action lawsuit...

  50. Not as sinister as everyone believes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "affiliates, agents and parent companies"

    Believe it or not this is not as sinister as everyone believes. I have worked for many phone co's what they are generally referring to here is due to the fact that the old land line company is regulated and they are not allowed to share your info with the unregulated companies. So for example if you get FIOS and LD, they aren't allowed to get info from the "verizon" that gives you local (and vice versa) This is why you would always get the seemingly stupid question - "Do we have permission to use your address and service information?" when you call in for billing questions etc. when it seems like they should already know it. This wastes a lot of time (yours and theirs) and most co's moved it to a recorded message before you even speak with a representative in the last few years. This is just another logical step that probably allows VZ wireless, vz fios and vz local to share the info without constantly asking you that question. YMMV read the fine print.

  51. Mod down, Econ 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, that's not how businesses work. Businesses price to maximize profit. This means consumers don't always eat the cost of infrastructure upgrades or any extras that companies spend on, as you claimed they would. Conversely, prices don't drop when businesses are able to cut costs.

    I would only agree with your logic if Verizon decided to give a discount to customers, but they don't.

    1. Re:Mod down, Econ 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that's not how businesses work. Businesses price to maximize profit. This means consumers don't always eat the cost of infrastructure upgrades or any extras that companies spend on, as you claimed they would. Conversely, prices don't drop when businesses are able to cut costs.

      I would only agree with your logic if Verizon decided to give a discount to customers, but they don't.

      Agreed. The savings are only even theoretically passed on to the customer under perfect competition, which is definitely not the model that describes the market for wireless carriers.

    2. Re:Mod down, Econ 101 by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      You're right, companies seem hesitant to lower prices when they encounter lowered costs, even if it would gain them more customers and more total profit. That seems to be a bit of business foolishness that most companies suffer with. Luckily inflation ends up making this point irrelevant (prices fail to rise as fast as they could've).

      Verizon, however, is not dumb. They know Sprint is eating their lunch on data plan pricing. They know they don't have exclusives like AT+T, and (comparative) bargain rates on voice and text like T-Mobile. They've got some work to do to stop customers from outflowing once their contracts are up, and pricing would be a good place to start.

  52. CPNI was changed to opt out years ago by Devistater · · Score: 1

    For years now, since the FCC said CPNI was opt out, EVERY phone company (mobile and landline) could sell/trade ALL your information. Name, address, billing info, numbers you call, time you call them, how often you call them, essentially every single thing the phone company knows about you. The kinda stuff that normally requires a warrant, they can just give it away. The name for that info is CPNI (customer proprietary network information).

    This was changed in 2002, because of a court case (previously it was opt in only). The FCC decided rather than fight it, they would just switch to opt out.
    (Yeah there are a few restrictions, like they have to be a telecommunications related company... hmm if I sell cell phone batteries, I must be telecommunications related, right?)

    Everyone should have already opted out years ago to prevent this kinda thing, if they were paying attention. No one did, so this kinda thing wasn't stopped.
    If you haven't already you should call up every phone company you use and ask them not to share CPNI.

    Get the Facts (google up CPNI, and here's a place to start)
    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneaboutyou.html

    "1) Opt-Out Your company sends you a notice saying it will consider you to have given your approval to use your customer information for marketing unless you tell it not to do so (usually within 30 days.)"
    "How to Help Prevent Unauthorized Disclosure of Your Customer Information"

    "Read your telephone bill and any other notices you receive from your company carefully. Determine if your company is seeking opt-in or opt-out permission to use or share your customer information for marketing."

    Thats whats been going on here.

  53. The Real Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell this post links to gizmorondo I've no idea. Typical of sites stealing stories, they only have a blurb about it which is stupid anyway.

    This is the real source:

    http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2009/03/07/tales-of-data-pirates-opting-out-of-verizons-open-ended-sharing/

  54. No Big Deal by DeAxes · · Score: 0

    I don't see what the fuss is about. As a student at a business school, I understand the lingo. Basically, they want to share customer info with parent companies and other subsidiaries of the parent companies. In this case, Verizon Wireless is a subsidiary (separate company owned and operated by parent company)of Verizon. They want to give info to other Verizon companies, such as their home phone company/division and their DSL division. This will help with tech support big time. Worst that will happen is some guy trying to sell Verizon long distance plans with your Wireless service. I don't see the big deal.

  55. Dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a dupe.
    I already opted-out in 2007.

    Which is why the message in the "my account" information is "not available".

    From vz-wireless:

    A copy of your Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice for Verizon Wireless service is not available online.

    Why is that?
    Your Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice is available to view online if executed within the last 6 months. For information or to request documents older than 6 months, please contact Customer Service at 800.922.0204.

    The story writer must be reading some really old mail.

    Unless anyone can confirm that this is a new initiative instead of some FUD?

  56. err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hate stories like this. There is nothing you can do and even if you leave the provider and go to another provider that already does exactly the same thing, your information is still is in their hands.

  57. Verizon misdeeds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    VZ top mgmt would sell their own mothers. Of course, they want to sell YOURS first.

  58. No opt-out link for prepay accounts by Card+Zero · · Score: 1

    I'm a Verizon prepay customer, for what it's worth, but there is no such link on my profile page. I only have an option to set my messaging level to low, medium, or high.

  59. Opt-out by twistedfuck · · Score: 1

    From Verizon Customer Support:
    If you do not want your information shared in this way, please sign in to âoeMy Verizonâ and choose the âoeMy Profileâ tab. Click on the âoeView/Edit Privacy (CPNI) Settingsâ link under the âoeCell Phone Controlsâ section and update your preference. Or you may call the "Verizon Wireless Opt Out Line" at 1-800-333-9956 and your request will be honored.

    I couldn't find the setting on their website, but the 1-800 number works.

  60. Opting out is available on the web by NuclearRampage · · Score: 1

    1. Sign in to your account.
    2. Click on 'My Profile'.
    3. In the 'Phone Controls' section click on 'View/Edit Privacy(CPNI) Settings'.
    4. Select the 'Don't Share My CPNI' option.
    5. Click 'Submit'.
    6. Hope they actually obey this option!

  61. Verizon tsk tsk tsk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the great info. I opted out all my cell phones. Thanks Mat for passing this onto me.

  62. You mean officially? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because unofficially, I bet they are doing it already. No everyone who pays enough or is a TLA (three letter agency)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  63. Verizon -OnStar by stuholden · · Score: 1

    This privacy agreement reads like OnStar's, who also want to share your information (location, radio station preferences, etc) with their partners. OnStar uses Verizon's network. I haven't found an easy way to prevent OnStar sharing my CPNI.