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."

63 of 236 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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"
    15. 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.

    16. 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/
    17. 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"
    18. Re:boy am I glad by saiha · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  2. 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 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. 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 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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
    13. 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!

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.
  4. 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 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."
    2. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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!
  8. 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 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.

  9. 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."
  10. 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!
  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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).

  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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.