Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Tells Cops "Your Money Or Your Life"
Mike writes "A 62-year-old man had a mental breakdown and ran off after grabbing several bottles of pills from his house. The cops asked Verizon to help trace the man using his cellphone, but Verizon refused, saying that they couldn't turn on his phone because he had an unpaid bill for $20. After an 11-hour search (during which time the sheriff's department was trying to figure out how to pay the bill), the man was found, unconscious. 'I was more concerned for the person's life,' Sheriff Dale Williams said. 'It would have been nice if Verizon would have turned on his phone for five or 10 minutes, just long enough to try and find the guy. But they would only turn it on if we agreed to pay $20 of the unpaid bill.' Score another win for the Verizon Customer Service team."
Any time something like this happens everyone from the first manager with the authority to do something that refuses all the way up the chain gets held responsible for whatever happens as a result of their refusal to act.
Guy dies, they get held responsible for murder because they chose to not assist the police knowing full well that their actions would cause the death of another human being.
Never going to happen.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The cops should have just told Verizon they were the NSA. Verizon would have given them anything.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Don't even contractless cell phones have to support calling 911?
If so, doesn't that mean they are always talking to nearby tower(s) just as much as any other cell phone and thus just as easily trackable?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Customer service doesn't stray far from their scripts, do they?
"After some disagreement, Williams agreed to pay $20 on the phone bill in order to find the man. But deputies discovered the man just as Williams was preparing to make arrangements for the payment."
Why did it take the police 11 hours to decide to pay the $20 dollar bill? If someones life was likely at stake, $20 out of my own pocket is a pretty small price to pay to locate him.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Unless someone dies or is in physical danger.
They can actually turn on your phone, even though you have it switched off? What if the battery is drained?
This is so scary! I want to ditch my cell phone and go back to POTS.
What if it was a technical limitation, with the system strictly enforcing "no payment, no service"?
Lets see, Verizon decided to not allow law enforcement to TRACK a customer. That is a GOOD THING.
It's a cell phone, not an invasion of privacy device used on a whim by any police officer at will.
I generally like Verizon, their FiOS service is fast and they don't do any sort of throttling or have bandwidth caps. But their customer service truly sucks. I've never gotten a reply to any emails and minimum hold time for phone calls is 20 minutes. Even Dell customer support (coming from India) is more helpful.
Where was this Verizon when the warrantless wiretaps were going on? They are a business, they have no obligation to help with police work. It may have been nice but it is not necessary.
I wish Verizon had grown these balls much earlier.
Though they did support the guy's privacy, it was inadvertent. If you RTFA, there were two K-9 units, several fire departments and 100 individuals on foot looking for the guy after the police were called by a neighbor. They weren't concerned about the guy's privacy, they were concerned about the guy's unpaid debts.
Ok next time your life is in danger and you are missing, we will let you be.
That's not what happened. They would have happily tracked the guy if his bill had been paid. They wanted money, even at the expense of the customers life. (Hopefully soon to be a former customer)
This situation highlights the gap between technology and policy. My guess is, that if things don't get completely ignored after this news item falls from focus, then whatever policy changes are implemented will be ponderous and draconian and will not prevent this scenario from recurring.
This was Verizon asking for payment for a late bill, nothing more, nothing less.
The article didn't say they refused out of privacy concerns, it said they refused because of an unpaid bill. I would agree with you on the privacy issue though, they shouldn't be allowed to randomly turn on your phone and track you just because the police say so, unless, they have the permission of a concerned relative/spouse. If there's a means to find a lost and sorely missed loved one, it should be used.
Whatever happened to the requirement to provide 911 service to any phone, paid up or not?
Back in the old analog days, the network operators were required to connect any calls to 911, whether the phone had a current account or not. Even after letting my Motorola brick's account lapse, I kept it in the glove compartment for just such an emergency, since analog service has much greater range (and coverage area) than digital (until they turned it off). If this requirement is still in effect, an unpaid phone would still check in with the nearest cell when entering its coverage area and could be tracked. Even if it was blocked from placing or receiving calls. That would seem to be a minimum requirement to support the E911 requirement. Unless the networks have managed to weasel out of yet another law, that is.
Have gnu, will travel.
Ha ha, you're trolling right?
Those damn firefighters are always breaking down doors too. They should all go to jail unless they get permission first.
If the police find any evidence by tracking/searching/whatever without a warrant then that evidence shouldn't be admissible in court. Suggesting that the police shouldn't have access to easy and available means like tracking cell phones to find genuinely missing persons is pretty stupid.
BTW - Verizon was perfectly willing to give up the location in return for $20.
...when we as a species will have to choose between whether we want to allow any and all life on this planet to survive, or whether we want to allow the corporation to survive.
The survival of Man and the corporation are mutually exclusive. In order for one to survive, the other must eventually die.
But manslaughter.
Thing is, how do you punish a corporation for manslaughter? Remember, a corporation is a "legal person" so you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
'I was more concerned for the person's life,' Sheriff Dale Williams said.
Bully for the cops, for a change! The guys who are supposed to protect and serve, who get such a bad rap in recent years, were trying to figure out how to pay a bill for a guy who was trying to off himself. Goddamit but that makes me feel good.
He couldn't hear them now.
BTW - Verizon was perfectly willing to give up the location in return for $20.
Reminds me of the old punch line: "We've established what you are. We're just haggling over the price."
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm sure the terms of service clearly state that if you haven't paid your bill you can't get phone access even to save your life.
In the US, there are laws that require cell phone networks to allow people to make 911 calls from their phones even if their accounts are expired, or even if the phone has no SIM card at all. Perhaps there needs to be a similar, inverse law requiring that emergency responders be able to track someone's phone in an emergency regardless of the state of their contract/account. Of course, there are some foreseeable privacy implications, and I'm not sure I would want the cops to be able to know where I am any time they want, but laws could be written such that a family member must give consent, etc.
Or better yet! I can report seeing you run off the day after you leave on vacation or some such! Yeah yeah false report but I coulda just seen it wrong but oh man how fun of a vacation would you have!
Fines. Very large fines. Verizon sounds here like they would have complied with the request had the bill been paid. Hell, if I was a Verizon tech and I knew the request was legitimate, I'd have paid the damn $20 to get the system to activate the phone, if that's what it took.
Verizon should have to forfeit to the government all profit their shareholders would have received in dividends or share increases for 3 months. We'll see if they ever pull this shit again. Someone's fucking life was at stake! Who cares if the guy was crazy, or an asshole, of owed them money - dead men can't pay bills! Help your customer survive to outlive that service contract, if for no better reason such as, you know, saving someone's life! Fucking idiots.
I don't understand this unwritten law that telcos must all act like they have some kind of mental handicap.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
You're kidding, right?
a. Verizon didn't decide not to help the police due to some great respect for civil liberties.
They wanted money. Period. They made it clear, apparently, that as soon as the cops coughed up the $$$, they would get the info. Why are you applauding Verizon?
b. Police have broad powers when a life is threatened. Very broad. They need a search warrant to go into my house. However, if they hear a scream and a gunshot, they don't need anything other than the soles of their feet as they cheerfully kick in my door and swarm in. They are safeguards against abuse of this power. Although it happens, judges frown when officers are caught abusing it and tend to toss any illegally gathered evidence out the window. Several companies have a policy of following emergency requests with paperwork stating what was done and why. It's highly likely that if the cops were making stuff up in an excuse to scam information out of Verizon it would have come back to bite them.
No, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. Verizon just sucks.
Verizon wilfully obstructed a police investigation when there was an emergency with someone in imminent danger.
Clap some of the loons in iron.
It was actually .002 cents he owed them.
On a more realistic note, somebody should file suit against those assholes.
A man could have died because he didn't pay his cell phone bill.
There doesn't seem to be disagreement over if the cops had the right to track his phone, so why in god's name should the company not be held responsible for its shocking and asinine behavior?
Stupid. This has nothing to do with "greed". It's obviously a bad PR move from Verizon, it will cost them. They do not care that much about an unpaid $20 bill.
This story is about how large centralized organization become bureaucratic and fail to act efficiently.
Now the sad part is that the people who are the quickest to talk about "greed" are also the one who will want the government (n.b. a large centralized bureaucratic institution) to step in and prevent "greediness"
\u262D = \u5350
Fuck the cops. Get a subpoena and we'll talk. Look, in this instance the cops might have needed the information to help a troubled old man. But I used to work for a CLEC (phone company for the layman) and there were plenty of times where the cops wanted information and acted surprised that we didn't just hand it over. There are laws dictating how this sort of thing is meant to be done. If everyone followed them, things would run smoothly.
The first time I heard the story, the person was Winston Churchill. But it changes all the time. I've also heard it be George Bernard Shaw. Here goes:
Winston Churchill was at a dinner party, and asked the woman next to him if she would sleep with him for one million pounds. She hemmed and hawed for a while before saying "Yes, I would." Churchill then asked her if she'd sleep with him for 10 pounds. Aghast, she asked him, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" Churchill replied, "We've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
Inside joke.
Anyhow, if the cellphone had been shut off by the carrier, why would this guy take the cellphone with him?
Negligent Endangerment.
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
If Verizon were truly afraid of what the federal government says, they would respect president Obama's opinion and not risk being found guilty of a hypothetical future manslaughter.
Now, let's see who has given Verizon a reason to be afraid.
billing center is going to loose a contract.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Boom ching!!
Immediate chapter 7 with the government first in line for any payouts (ahead of shareholders, who should be taking part in the risk if they own part of something who commits murder/manslaughter)
I'm sorry did I say your money _or_ your life? /blackadder
Oh I'm terribly sorry I meant your money _and_ your life!
Not the most accurate but it's what I can remember for now!
Don't panic
Right now many of these companies have been granted a public monopoly on RF spectrum. The public had better be getting something in return for this; as soon as we're not, as soon as it's no longer in the public interest to grant exclusive license to broadcast on a given frequency to Verizon, that license ought to go away.
(Hopefully soon to be a former customer)
Almost was...
Remember, a corporation is a "legal person" so you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.
No. The corporation's status as a legal person protects share holders. It does not protect employees of the corporation. If I charter the "Mafia Collection Agency" corporation and hire assassins, they can still be punished for murder.
In this particular case, an employee that receives the request from law enforcement has three possible actions:
1. Help, turn the phone on.
2. Ignore or delay the request.
3. Escalate to a supervisor.
#1 may or may not be possible to a customer support representative. #3 is an acceptable action.
The highest level that got a documented request and ignored it should be criminally liable. After a few mid level managers go to jail, nobody would be willing to ignore this type of request. Managers would make sure the CYA and send this up the chain until it got to somebody with common sense.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Here's a classic example of strict and rigid rules laid down without any sensible leeway, and how it backfires. A lot of companies actually have a "bible" with the correct procedure for every standard situation. ISO 9001 and other similar standards actually support this behaviour.
I can well imagine how this happened. First, there is some flowchart that dictates how and when who may turn what phone on and off under what circumstances. My guess is that some relevant part reads something like "do not turn phone on unless bill is paid". Furthermore the "executing" levels of the company (i.e. the grunts doing the work who are disallowed to think for themselves) most likely got directives to stick to the rules by the letter or face consequences (i.e. start sending out resumes, you have 2 weeks).
I pity only the poor guy who actually had to decline the request. Because he had the choice between shooting himself and finding a beam strong enough to handle his weight plus rope. If he activated the phone, he would have broken the all sacred and holy document telling him how to do his job and be fired. Now, he didn't and sure enough he'll be made the scapegoat for the blunder of a manager who created the rules without thinking of emergencies like this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I understand that... :) I just dont know why everyone else doesnt get it. ;P
Capitalism at it's best. Verizon has a right to keep the service off until the bill is paid, otherwise it's simply government interference in the free market. This isn't a charity, it's a company. If you didn't want to die, them maybe you should not have gone crazy; it's your own fault and you deserve to die. /sarcasm
Anyone remember the story of an elderly man in the Midwest who died because he could not pay his bill and so the utility company reduced his heat in the middle of winter, causing him to freeze to death?
And/or take away all of the cell phones in their immediate families, and cancel their On*Star subscriptions to boot.
Either that, or make them switch to Sprint :-)
This is the credited response.
This is kind of strange... If the phone was on, it would be in contact with a tower, even if the account was not "activated". If the phone was in contact with a tower, Verizon could have told them, at a minimum, the general area the phone was in (perhaps they did, but it's not in the article). Finally, if the phone was in range of more than one tower, Verizon could have told them where the phone was by triangulation. They actually use this method where I live if the phone doesn't have GPS capability built in. They only use the system when 911 operators are trying to locate an incoherent caller or a caller who's had an accident and can not explain where they are. Strange that Verizon in OH doesn't have this ability when they do in VA.
but said company (by slashdot rules) is not allowed to give out any information on any internet user for fear of rapproach via uploading/bittorrent/music/movies etc -- but should be willing to bend to law enforcement in any other case? seems odd.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
As a Verizon customer, this really sucks. I'm thinking changing my service to another carrier because of this. However, without all of the facts like if this person is off-shored and must stick to a script or just a moron that doesn't know the gravity of the situation. Hopefully, this a one time but only time will tell. I think heard similar stories with other carriers so jump from Verizon will like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
If the phone was turned off for lack of payment, why would the police think that he had the phone with him? Even if he were crazy enough to carry it with him, would he be sane enough to charge it too? I can't see too many cases where turning on a closed account could be useful.
Why would you advocate finding someone via their cellphone?
Thoughts like that lead to the gov't knowing your every move. Please, Slashdotters, be pro-privacy.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
So this guy's phone is off right?
I sure as hell don't carry around my disabled phones with me so their request would have been entirely useless.
Also, if the radio was the carrier can still find it. Like others said 911 is still always active on the phone regardless of service. This is why its suggested to leave a phone and a charging cable in your trunk in the event of an emergency.
Seems everyone is making a big deal out of a stupid request. It should be "Moron cops don't understand technology, make idiotic request. Thinks cell phones allow you to track people even if they don't have it on them."
"BTW - Verizon was perfectly willing to give up the location in return for $20."
Hey officer. I've got the information you need right here. You want it? You pay me for it.
extortion, much?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How do they do that? Send a signal to the phone to activate its radio circuit?
If I don't want to be found, as was evidently the case here, fine by me.
(Don't get me wrong - it's natural that other people want to help even if the person doesn't want that, and often the person will later say they are glad they were saved. But your comment suggests that the OP will be upset at the lack of help from you or Verizon - yet if he's ever in that situation where he doesn't want to be found, this clearly won't be the case.)
Last time I paid $20 to turn something on it didn't involve a phone...
When my daughter was diagnosed with leukemia, and was in the ICU for a week and in the hospital for few more weeks, the last thing on my mind were my cell phone minutes and my plan...
Both me and my wife (family plan) made so many calls that we got a two bills (we did not open our bills for a few months) for over $1,000 each (sorry do not recall the exact figure)
One call to Verizon, quick explanation of what happened, and they wiped out all the excess charges, put me on a larger plan, and gave me a 22% discount on top of (which they still honor, so today I still pay 22% less)
In all other occasions where I had to call for support, billing or technical, or just to ask a quesiont, all issues were resolved quickly and efficiently, and to my complete satisfaction.
I agree. Jail and huge fines. If this is the only language they understand, let's speak it up.
Though I agree that Verizon sucks, the police do NOT need a search warrant- haven't you heard of the Patriot Act?
They are a cell phone company.
Usually they confine themselves to extorting regular citizens, but it was only a matter of time until they started working their way up.
This makes no sense. Why not pay the 20 bucks for an instant find, instead of what was clearly more than 20 bucks for several police officers to meandor about trying to find him?
Not sure how I feel about Verizon on this one - it's no less reasonable to expect police to pay for an account to turn it on than if the police had come in and requested a phone for themselves. But the police themselves in this case were idiots.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
TFA doesn't state if the police followed proper law enforcment req protocol
for example if they where smart enough to google
verizon wireless law enforcement requests
and read the 800 number that is in the very first result (I won't post the number as it is law enforcement only)
but blah blah blah
(press "1" for general information, press "2" for subpoenas, press "3" for court orders and press "4" for EXIGENT situations)
I assume they want 4 =p or a court order barring success w/ an EXIGENT situation request.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Or Sheriff Dale Williams got in a huff because the damn civilians didn't lay down and do what they are told. I'm sure the 20 dollar story that the sheriff told is the absolute truth and nothing but the truth..... right.
11 hours and they couldn't find a judge to issue a warrant.
Personally I'm glad Verizon refused to track the phone without a warrant regardless of the expressed reason. I don't think we have all the information, and I doubt the parties involved will ever release the documented facts.
Verizon is the devil. Hence the red logo.
I hate them with a passion.
When they demand your GP or your HP, you pretend to comply and then execute an attack of opportunity.
Shouldn't it be, "Your Money or the 62-year-old man's life?" After all, it wasn't the cops who were in danger.
Release the hounds!
This is just soooooo unbelievably disgusting. Verizon should be eliminated for this. The fact that a person's life was at stake.... words can't describe how evil this is. Plain and simple, Verizon should be killed.
Considering the number of mentally disabled people who are beaten or killed by cops trying to control them, Verizon may have been doing the guy a favor by refusing to help the cop find him.
If your cell phone doesn't work because you were behind on your bills, why would you bother to carry it around and/or have it on and charged.
See e.g. Searches And Seizures FAQ (PDF). The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. This case seems to be a cut and dried emergency case. Now, whether the Verizon operator had a legal duty (moral duty is obvious) to comply with the police's emergency request.. I imagine the operator, or Verizon itself, could be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Count this as a troll but I don't care. I need to get this off my chest.
This guy probably didn't have a $20 outstanding balance. He probably had a $70 outstanding balance. Knowing Verizon, they would probably want to tack-on their ridiculous $50 late fee bullshit like they did for me and my $35/month plan with one day late charges at one time.
They can fornicate themselves with an iron stake as far as I'm concerned.
[/vent]
The game.
How would the Verizon rep know that it really was the police requesting this? Do you immediatley do whatever the guy on the phone tells you to do, just because he claims to be a cop?
If turning this guy's cell phone on was worth $20, doing it effectively means somebody is going to be out $20. Why should Verizon be the one to foot that bill? The police required this man's phone service to be on, so they should have paid to turn his phone service on. Why the hell not?
How on earth would the Verizon employee know that its really a cop calling? How would the Verizon employee know that the guy is really in trouble? Verizon is a "business" that has to protect itself from all sorts of predators, government employees/agents included. How did the Verizon employee know that the cop wasnt just asking to turn on the cell phone to track someone for other than "emergency" purposes? That could make Verizon liable as an accomplice for an illegal search and siezure. Let me guess, what if the cop called, said it was an emergency (life and death) and they turned the phone on, only to find out that the cop was just using Verizon to aide in some sort of surviellance operation? I'm sure there would be all sorts of whiney little socialists pounding at the keyboards saying, "there they go again, spying on us! Tin foil hats! Tin foil hats! Evil corpratations!" I know, how about we FINE every retard on slashdot who "demands" "social justice" for "evil corporation" that doesnt jump at every knee jerk populist sounding situation.
20th century Marxism is not progress...
One of the initial companies to form Verizon was GTE,
also known as "Gross Technological Error" so their
continuing troubles do not surprise me in the least
Neither you nor the power company, for instance, are required to give free power to oldsters who will freeze to death in the winter or die of heatstroke in the summer absent heating and air conditioning. You and they aren't even required to give free power to somebody in an iron lung. As a public utility the power company IS required to give them power, even reduced rate power, WHEN arrangements are made to pay appropriately for it. This stuff has come up over and over again.
Similarly with the phone company.
Cops said: "Turn the phone on so we can find him."
Phone company said "Sure. We'll do it for $20 - much less than his outstanding balance - as soon as you tell where to send the bill."
Cops said: "We won't pay."
Family said: "We won't pay."
Phone company said: "Call us when you figure out where to send the bill. We're all set to push the button."
Fifth amendment: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The cops were trying to steal service. The phone company knew damn well that if they turned on the phone without the necessary promise to pay they'd never see the money.
Now the media are dumping on the phone company - in an obvious attempt to let such attempts to steal service succeed in the future. IMHO the blame should be placed where it belongs: On the police department and/or the family (to the extent that they should have paid up as part of THEIR obligations). Not on the phone company (which would then be drafted into funding a never-ending set of demands for free service whenever someone decided the situation was some sort of emergency).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
HAH! Mental breakdown? Bottle of pills?! Running off?! Money issues preventing law enforcement finding him?!!
We're finally in the future!
(forgive me, I just finished watching THX 1138 for the first time, and the similarities to the story summary above are eerie imo.)
Since this is apparently a news site, I have a question: Did Verizon ever actually say "Your Money Or Your Life". If not, then why is the line in quote marks?
There is no proof that the LEO or the general public was in imminent danger. So your argument doesn't pass the search and seizure test. They'd need a warrant, which I think they probably could've gotten in an hour, two tops. None of this 11 hour bullshit.
While I think that the fact that no one would turn on the phone is ridiculous, you have to be careful about retribution. Because if the penalty is too severe you have pretty much put the fate of the company in the hands of the lowliest peons. It's not like the CEO took the call and refused. It was most likely some guy making $8 /hr and his manager that refused to do it. Sure, fine Verizon because they are still liable for their employee. But if the penalty is too stiff the people on the phones have a VERY good avenue to extort the company.
There is NO DUTY under the law to come to the aid or to aid police police with an investiation.
You have a duty to not leave someone in a worse position than you found them in, if you decide to render aid.
If I walk by a guy that's on fire and I do nothing, under the law there's no criminal penalty. Why should verizon be held to a different standard. Evil, yes... morally reprehensible, also yes. Criminally liable? Hell no.
verizon is the new sprint pcs. on the other hand i hear sprint customer service is pretty good now. maybe i'll go back.
I don't know about you but I don't carry stuff around that cant be used. And don't they need a warrant to track your phone anyway?
The next time Verion needs a favor from the sheriff they will regret their decision. They need the favors from the police a lot more often than vice versa, for example, protecting copper lines from theft.
Really?? $20???
I have numerous lines and a monthly bill of nearly $1k. Slipped my mind, didn't pay and my service was shut off one Friday evening and I didn't realize it until Sat. morning when Verizon CALLED ME telling me they are turning them back on if I make the payment the following week sometime. Said thanks and called in the payment the beginning of the week once back in town. So it's pretty amazing to me they wouldn't activate the service for a couple hours (and yes, every customer service rep you call into has that authority, just depends on the mood of who you are speaking too)
you can't punish an employee for obeying the will of the company.
Let me pull a godwin and tell you that was the POINT of the nuremberg process : we are HUMAN and we should question "order" when they are stupid, life threatening to 3rd innocent party, anti-huamn etc... Else what you quickly get are people doing all sort of horror on small scale or big scale with the sole excuse of "I was following the order of my superior".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
who is thinking "this guy can do whatever he wants, it's his body and his life. who else has jurisdiction over his life?"
countries that are less hostile to businesses and wealth. Yep! Most of us fatcats and big businesses now love those sorts of countries, we need a little more latitude, where they are less hostile to "business" and WAY more hostile to those little slave peons who work for us. The nerve of those proles to demand a living wage or safe working conditions! That cuts down our profits! The only thing that matters is profits! Nothing else! If those serfs give you any trouble, just a word in the ear of the local warlord, who will in turn give some commands to his death squad..err, I mean "legally constituted police" to go give those labor rabble rousers a little "courtesy visit", that'll square them away pronto! Plus, there's millions more slaves out there to use up, so who cares, right? We are the bondholders, the shareholders, the investors! We are the new royalty, the aristocracy, what we say is law, what we do is always legal because we PAY for those laws, so nothing should be changed! We are always right, those ..creatures who we so generously provide a "job" to should worship us as Gods! They are lucky we even pay them at all, they should pay us for the privilege of working in our modern factories! Ingrates! And we'll just move to another "less hostile" nation if where we are now loses any aspect of what we expect! We PAY for our politicians and laws, so no changes unless we sayso!
With you bro, let's go cut some serfs down to size for sport! I have the cognac!
If the guys account was shutoff, why would he carry the phone with him? The article never said he had the phone with him either.
If he was carrying the phone, the telco is legally obligated to allow the phone to call 911. Curious - is the reverse true that 911 operators must be able to call his phone?
Since the phone must still work to make 911 calls, that means its still talking to the cell towers and Verizon can locate the phone regardless of whether the ability to dial other non-emergency numbers was disabled.
right after I eat all these pills.
Seems to me they really didn't want the guy to pay, or they would have done more to keep him alive.
Then they should have done everything they could to keep him alive at least long enough to pay that bill.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I am surprised the cops didn't nail Verizon on a technicality. It is illegal to shut a cell phone service off completely. The cell phone should always be allowed to call 911. In order to be able to dial 911, it needs to connect to the Verizon CDMA network. The police should pursue this with the FCC.
Afraid that is not the case in real life and real law. If you are aware of someone in distress, can help but don't, then you are legally liable. Be very wary of living by your advice, not only would any religion in the world condemn you to hell, you could easily find yourself in a courtroom with a jury who would never dare rule in your favor since that would be admitting they themselves would not help their fellow man.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Verizon in particular and to corporations in general.
Fuck 'em back.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Governments should add a public humiliation punishment for this kind of corporate greed and stupidity. Anyone at Verizon responsible for the policy that led to not helping the cops should be exposed naked in public and get butt slapped by some robot designed fot the task. When facing the choice of getting a 20 bucks bill paid or saving a life, any answer other than saving a human life should expose someone in management to that public humiliation thing. Let's see then for how long they keep choosing stupidity and greed.
I agree large companies and large governments are equally untrustworthy because our own self interest is never served by the interest of others, particularly in mass, and completely unwilling to deal with individuals that do not conform to the status quo. Whether they serve the shareholder or the taxpayer, in theory, they really are self serving first. One is run by a few greedy cheapskates that only want profit, the other is run entirely by a bunch of government employees who don't ever want to look for another job ever again. No wonder we feel screwed by both...that's what people do really well in any country at any time in history no matter what they say - its that old human nature and the simple fact that life and poker are never fair, even if they should be. So, I agree, we should nuke Verizon, whack the fed, spank the legal system, punish the pharmaceutical company, the cops, and the courts, then we can eat the rich, blame the poor, lie and steal and pray and cry, and if were lucky, absolutely nothing will be our fault or any different than it was before we arrived. I sure as hell don't know how to connect the dots of common sense to finding a good way to manage the lives of 300 million countrymen and 6 billion earthlings in a way where the golden rule can thrive. Its all about survival and self preservation, and yet its all about sacrifice and cooperation, a perpetual balancing act of the virtues and vices of humans who embody both extremes. My point is that corporations and government can't be trusted any more than any evil scumbag dwarf. If people decide how to run it, then somebody is getting screwed in the deal. I would feel a whole lot better if I was in charge of everything, especially reality, and I just blinked like a genie and then suddenly, everything was perfect, and Verizon was free, and we all sing koom-by-ah at Kwanzaa....but at least I have a good idea, an ideal plan, a great concept......if only I could win that super lotto power ball first, then I'd take care of everything....
Actually, they had the testimony of the person's family who said he had a mental breakdown and ran off after grabbing some pills. That story alone would make the situation qualify as a medical emergency. A skeptic might argue that they _could_ have been lying to the cops, but when somebody's life could be on the line, the policy is to _always_ err on the side of caution. Money and things are replaceable. People aren't. Besides, there'd be all sorts of hell to pay for the family making something like that up.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If he was using Verizon...
More seriously, why would he run off with a non-functioning cell?
Exactly. It's really not that complicated.
If the 62 year old man was a fellow officer or a close relative of a cop this would be a totally different story. The Verizon employee would have had a gun put to his head and forced to turn on the phone and then arrested for obstruction along with any other uncooperative employee. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing about how cops 'circle the wagons' in a situation like this.
You're doing it wrong, Verizon. Everyone knows the people of the country can't afford to pay their bills right now - but trying to extort it out of a local government?
Silly Verizon, you need to extort it out of the *FEDERAL* government. Or in most cases lately, you don't even need to extort it - just give a blowjob to the right member of Congress.
Anytime an employee of *ANY* arm of the government wants information "because I said so" deserves nothing but the middle finger.
If it's not true, Verizon will sue faster than a slashdot poster could follow a "naked Portman" link. Not knowing the facts will be the least of your worries.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I suppose I don't understand why no one is bitching about the fact that the sheriffs department wasn't willing to foot the $20 to save the man's life either...
Not only does it seem wrong to punish people for not doing something, allowing such laws may create potential situations where doing something is illegal AND not doing it is illegal. And about taxes, if you can find a way not to cost the government any money, you're probably a hermit without an income and not paying taxes anyway.
The cops asked to have the person tracked with his phone. You need a warrant for that. If the cops didn't have one, Verizon should have told them to go get one. Had the cops actually managed to pay the 20$ and use the phone to track the man, Verizon would be in deep legal troubles. If the cops had a warrant, Verizon is in trouble.
I Germany, we have a criminal offense, called "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" ("non-assistance of a person in danger"). And in the described case, one could have prosecuted the person(s) at Verizon who refused to help, with this.
As far as I know, in case of death, the penalty is close to that of murder. and in other cases, it's also close to actively endangering and assaulting them. So it's nothing to joke about, or to let slide.
I wonder if one can prosecute Verizon for this...
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
A Verizon-like story for the bored.
My company has pagers from a national US company. We pay for the services yearly instead of dicking with monthly statements. Said company shuts off our pagers one day. We find out the hard way: no pages are being received, and direct-dial gave a 'services suspended' message.
When called, company claimed to have sent three statements, all of which we never received (not totally true: I received one statement dated as they indicated, but this statement showed we had a positive balance, and it was NOT a renewal notice). They also claimed to have sent billing-related pages to "the users". You'd think they would do something modern, like Email the primary contact on the account. That would be me. But they didn't.
I go through all of the hoops to expedite payment to have services turned back on. You know how corporate Accounts Payable works. They want to do it at the end of the month. So I pull strings to get it done sooner.
I wait for snail mail to deliver. Company receives check. Services are... not turned on. WTF? Simple- I call and learn that, even though we've just paid them in full, they require a $25 "reconnection" fee. You mean the payment of four-digits-left-of-the-decimal wasn't enough?
Simple reason: between the time that the claimed first statement was issued, all of the above fiasco happened, and they received payment, a hair over 90 days had passed. At 90 days, the account it "reclassified", and requires a reconnect fee. It was less than 90 days when we learned the services were shut off, and I started working on the payment process, so the fee wasn't required then. Makes sense?
No amount of explaining the circumstances to the customer service droid had any effect. Nor was having my call escalated to a supervisor and re-explaining the whole thing. Nothing would get the services turned back on. No sympathy at all. For a lousy $25
USA Mobility lost us as a customer that day.
Yeah, that's along the lines of what I was thinking. Something like that, wouldn't you just instinctively escalate it to your boss? I mean, duh, that's what the boss is *for*.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I guess its not 20 bucks.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Did the guy have his phone with him when they finally found him? I'm curious because if I hadn't paid my phone bill and my phone had been turned off, I doubt I'd be carrying it around with me. Even if I knew I could call 911 - which isn't much of a reason if I'm planning to commit suicide.
As much as Verizon sucks, I suspect it went down more like this:
Cops: We need to trace this number.
Verizon: His service was canceled due to an unpaid $20 charge, and by the way, we'll need to see a warrant first.
Cops: Why should we pay you $20 to trace it? We're complaining to the press!
An update from a blogger in the area...
Here are the facts of this story, which the reporter didn't bother to get right: 1. missing man was in his 20s; 2. he had overdosed on pills; 3. he beat up his 62 year old father; 4. he was only missing for 3.5 hours; 5. he called police at midnight on 911; 6. verizon did provide the police the best locational information available; 7. the missing man's phone was a prepaid phone that had run out of minutes so it was inoperable without more minutes being added; 8. verizon shouldn't have worried about the $20, but neither should the police...it's $20 bucks!; 9. the police don't have GPS locating capability for 911 calls because the county hasn't paid for it yet; 10. the Sheriff's comments were, surprise, taken out of context. So, the real culprit in this story seems to be the reporter for getting so much wrong!!!
Nice way to research the situation, Slashdot. They were a local police department, not the NSA. They didn't have the ability to track the phone. Verizon did give them the most accurate info they could give on the man. Chock one to a reporter trying to make a name for himself.
But he wasn't a danger to anyone but himself, according to the testimony. It still didn't meet the burden of proof to get Verizon to act without a warrant. Would've been a lot simpler to call up a judge and get the warrant, and then Verizon would've had no choice, no matter what the bill was.
Whether the danger was to anyone but himself is immaterial. A person's life was still at risk. An officer does not require a warrant in the event of a medical emergency, and that situation would definitely qualify.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You are all wrong.
Verizon isn't required to provide service for free. It is a business, not a charity.
The guy took action of his own free will to harm himself. That is none of the government's business. Let him take his own life. The outcome is between him and his god. Stupidity let's Darwin's theory work.
And don't think that the cops were very bright either. Calling normal customer service to get an ""emergency" situation handled is stupid.
FYI, I've worked on replacing regional 911 systems for a VERY large telecom. Basically, the telecom is a service provider only. The 911 systems are remotely managed by a service bureau in Colorado and by local governments all over the country. We couldn't touch the systems even to ensure they were scanned for computer viruses or that the network wasn't infected. In fact, while we were required to host the systems, they weren't connected to any of our internal networks at all. The outside connection used a 40+ year old network technology.
To lower costs to connect to 911 centers, some of the "business" analyst wanted to use DSL connections. Idiots. DSL is a best effort service, not guaranteed like a T1 which is monitored constantly and the line is "conditioned." That extra monitoring costs money. That's why a T1 is $400/month and DSL is $40/month. T1 costs are related to distance, so some will be $2,000/month if it is far away.
This puts the finger squarely on what is wrong. Corporations have no soul.
There is no conscience that you can speak to. They become greed machines that are only interested in profits. To the expense of anything else not the company.
Enron, the savings and loans, this latest fiasco, all of which happened because of the greed mentality. Which precludes acting in anyones benefit, if you can't get a dollar out of it.
Google had the right idea with its "do no harm policy," Even, though many could argue that they haven't followed their own charter. At least, it is in there. I think there should also be a "conscience" position in the company that is equal to, or nearly equal to CEO.
Whoops! I am ranting!
Nevermind...
loan info
I think I know some Verizon employees about to be the focus of some police harassment for some time to come. Cops have a tendency to take out their frustrations that way.
I personally, have no warm feelings for either party nor the "victim" in question. I do not believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but, when my enemies quarrel it's cool as a 3 stooges marathon.
In a matter of life or death tho, I suppose the family of the neurotic old man could sue Verizon for reckless endangerment. Let's face it some suit is responsible for the decision or lack thereof in spite of what their moron employees do.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So if you boss gives you a gun tells you "Shoot my Secretary" you are going to do that?
Of course he presents the new official company charter which lays that shooting secretaries is now part of your job responsibilities!
And of course you won't be prosecuted - after all you did it only because you where ordered and it is company policy.
Nope I don't think so.
Again, there is no way for Verizon to verify the validity of his claim without a warrant. Doesn't matter what the police thought, generally in these instances a warrant is the prudent course, and would have solved the problem much quicker than bitching over the phone with a tech support person.
How on earth would the Verizon employee know that its really a cop calling?
Some of your points are valid, but as for knowing who's calling... umm, they're the *phone company*.
As for the rest, there's a pretty good post on Verizon's actual procedures for dealing with it all, here: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1242757&cid=28063387
If my phone was disconnected I wouldn't bother to bring it with me, how do they know the guy even had his phone with him at the time.
I work in public relations for Verizon Wireless and would like to respond to this story. Verizon Wireless apologizes for our mistake. This particular issue has now been resolved. We will work to ensure our exemplary service to our nations first responders is on track, and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs.
I think this video is very relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9nJ0rpAcqk
I work with the corporate communications group at Verizon Wireless; in response to the Times-Reporter story, Verizon Wireless has provided the following statement... 'Verizon Wireless apologizes for our mistake. This particular issue has now been resolved. We will work to ensure our exemplary service to our nations first responders is on track, and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs.'
You know how there's usually the disclaimer when you call a company and it says "All calls will be recorded...."? I've worked in a few calls centers where there is this disclaimer and, yes, they were all recorded. So, does Verizon record all calls? And more importantly, is there a recording of *this* call?
I'm worried about The Onion. How can they match headlines like this?
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
And again, a warrant is not required when a person's _life_ is at risk, or there is reasonable cause to believe that this is the case.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
First, Verizon has ZERO obligation to provide services that are not paid for. To do so would be a violation of the company's legal obligation to maximize shareholder value. Ergo, it could have been construed as a crime against the shareholders to provide service for free.
Second, Verizon has a duty to minimize liability to the shareholders. Had they participated in this action, they not only would create the precedent that "hey cops, any time you want us to help you find someone, give us a call," but they put themselves on the wrong end of civil rights lawsuits.
Verizon absolutely did the correct thing here.
What is to stop a police officer from abusing this sort of access of technology without a warrant? And how is Verizon supposed to know it is a valid request? Are they supposed to just take their word for it? Yeah, that will work out well, and won't be abused at all.