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."
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.
Yeah especially if they committed a crime!! (not that I'm saying he did)
They weren't demanding and no it wasn't reasonable for them to demand money. Sure you'll disagree with me, but what if he had killed a family driving, or went on a rampage killing people or something, what then, where do we draw the line, sure this has the ability to be abused and shouldn't be done on a regular basis, but think of what could have been solved. Hindsight is 20/20 in that scenario.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
Why should they have to? They're a private company. You don't own them. The government doesn't own them. It's not in their interest to help anyone but themselves.
You're the one who needs to be flamed, not the guy you responded to. He was being the voice of reason, and his suggestion was valid. If there was legislation in place to compel a provider to give access to a LEO in the event of an emergency (we'll assume that the LEO provided a warrant for such access, as this is the only way to do so and keep everyone at least remotely honest), then there would be no hassle over a bill, be it $20 or $20,000. They'd turn on the service, perform the requested search, and then turn it off. Hell, they probably have the technology to do so without the dude even being able to make a call other than 911.