Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon's Plan To Snoop On Its Customers

Posted by Soulskill on from the part-and-parcel dept.

digitalPhant0m writes: "A story at the L.A. Times details how Verizon Wireless has started pushing the envelope (or downright abusing it) when it comes to tracking users without their knowledge. The company said, 'In addition to the customer information that's currently part of the program, we will soon use an anonymous, unique identifier we create when you register on our websites. This identifier may allow an advertiser to use information they have about your visits to websites from your desktop computer to deliver marketing messages to mobile devices on our network.' While newsworthy, the rate of privacy abuse revelations over the last few years makes it unsurprising."

85 comments

  1. monetizing corp(se) by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Base station your house and use the older tech for a few miles radius. Takes care of day-to-day needs.

  2. Wait what by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    They haven't been doing that all along anyway?

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    1. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both Verizon and AT&T are directly wired to the NSA. After that, what difference does it make?

    2. Re:Wait what by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      They haven't been doing that all along anyway?

      Of course - but now they're getting enough money to push that colonoscope all the way up to your teeth

      (...or did you not know why it is that they charge so damned much for such piddly little bandwidth caps, while you're just-as-able to get unlimited data/voice/text on a Net10-style or similar carrier, using the *same* phones and towers, but for a fraction of the price?)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Wait what by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      They haven't been doing that all along anyway?

      I don't expect they could do this legally without stating it somewhere in small print, which is what I gather they've done just now?

      If it were done illegally there would have to have been some kind of criminal conspiracy between Verizon (in this case) as supply and its advertising partners as the demand of such a black market.

      Surely that would have blown before long, at least if the market were large enough to risk it at all. Although, come to think of it, the LIBOR thing ran for quite a while...

      By the way, how is it that this kind of double speak, in official company communiques, passes largely unnoticed:

      we will soon use an anonymous, unique identifier

      ?

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    4. Re:Wait what by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      They haven't been doing that all along anyway?

      Of course - but now they're getting enough money to push that colonoscope all the way up to your teeth

      Their actions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:Wait what by krygny · · Score: 1

      The NSA (and the rest of the government) is mostly staffed by incompetent idiots. Mostly. Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

      Then again, sufficient incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    6. Re:Wait what by davester666 · · Score: 1

      another article I read said they started setting this up back in 2011 with some changes in the TOS...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. Should Be Illegal by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This time there surely must be a law that stops this. Mobile devices may pay by the minute for incoming communications. Therefore receiving an unwanted ad is a form of taking and as such must not be allowed. The same could be said of a PC if one has a monetary penalty for receiving too much data.

    1. Re:Should Be Illegal by ClownPenis · · Score: 1

      Devils Advocate stance... They will counter with. We don't include any of that data in your calculated data use for billing / data cap purposes.

    2. Re:Should Be Illegal by alen · · Score: 2

      and how is it different when google does it?

    3. Re:Should Be Illegal by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, the only way to fight this is with a customer boycott. That is to say that Verizon (and others) will not cease such clandestine activites without their advertisers pulling out.

      The only way advertisers will pull out is with customer backlash, and that means we have to stop buying from companies who use such advertising.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    4. Re:Should Be Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you don't pay for the service, YOU are the product.

    5. Re:Should Be Illegal by rfrenzob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Verizon. We're not happy until you're not happy (TM).

    6. Re:Should Be Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't have anything interesting to say, YOU parrot catchphrases that have long since lost whatever miniscule amount of meaning they may have once had.

    7. Re:Should Be Illegal by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      It's different because with Google, you're paying for the services your using with this personal data and everyone knows that's the deal. With crap like what Verizon is doing, they're double-dipping, making us pay twice (once with money, once again with our personal data) and not being clear that they're selling you out.

      Verizon is being incredibly sleazy here.

    8. Re:Should Be Illegal by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I agree. I've been doing this for a long time now. When I see companies using awful practices like this, or ad that come through companies or ad agencies that engage in tracking, I make it a point to avoid buying those products and services. I don't intend it as a punishment or boycott, but it's more that I consider these practices to be despicable and I try my best to avoid doing business with companies that do despicable things.

    9. Re:Should Be Illegal by schwit1 · · Score: 0

      Which president signed the DMCA.
      Which president created the most expansive government intrusion into our personal life, aka Obamacare?
      Which president continues to sign off on FBI, DHS and NSA intrusions into our personal lives?
      Which president treats the Constitution and other federal law as suggestions?
      Which president has repeatedly lied about his administration's transparency?

      Right, it's the conservatives.

    10. Re:Should Be Illegal by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      Which president signed the DMCA.

      Both parties allowed it to get to the president.

      Which president created the most expansive government intrusion into our personal life, aka Obamacare?

      I would not consider that the most expansive, or even the most dangerous. Not even close. It has nothing on the TSA or the NSA, which are much more egregious violations of our fundamental liberties, and the latter even happens in broad daylight.

      Which president continues to sign off on FBI, DHS and NSA intrusions into our personal lives?

      All of them played a part.

      Which president treats the Constitution and other federal law as suggestions?

      That I can see? All of them.

      Which president has repeatedly lied about his administration's transparency?

      Plenty.

      That's not to say that Obama isn't an evil scumbag, but all of them are. There's a bipartisan effort to strip us of our basic liberties and shred the constitution.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    11. Re:Should Be Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it's the conservatives

      It most certainly was NOT the Conservatives.. It was Bush, both Daddy and Baby Bush.. They're no more Conservative than Mao Tse Tung... The Teaparty is the only group of Conservatives and they dodnt have ANYthing to do with it, nor did they even exist when all of the infringement of the Constitution occurred... .. .

    12. Re:Should Be Illegal by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Right, it's the conservatives.

      You are incorrectly linking "conservative" to "Republican". Both parties are far right, they just argue over how far, so that they can appear different.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    13. Re:Should Be Illegal by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      If you don't pay for the service, YOU are the product.

      If you don't have anything interesting to say, YOU parrot catchphrases that have long since lost whatever miniscule amount of meaning they may have once had.

      Sure it's a cliche remark. But the reason why it is cliche is that it fits many situations adequately. Cool thing about the truth: it can't be exaggerated.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    14. Re:Should Be Illegal by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Which president signed the DMCA.
      Which president created the most expansive government intrusion into our personal life, aka Obamacare?
      Which president continues to sign off on FBI, DHS and NSA intrusions into our personal lives?
      Which president treats the Constitution and other federal law as suggestions?
      Which president has repeatedly lied about his administration's transparency?"

      Which Republican fag are you shilling for is the more prudent question.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Should Be Illegal by davester666 · · Score: 1

      For verizon, you pay for the service AND you are the product, because they can make a couple more bucks selling your identity.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    16. Re:Should Be Illegal by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Verizon Wireless is not a free service, dude.

  4. No link to opt-out in article? by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A good article would have provided a link to opt-out. A great article would have mentioned addons that block it.

    Also, this appears to be no different than the standard cookie behavior of google, etc.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/faqs/AccountManagement/mobile_ads.html

      Can I refuse permission to use my information for Relevant Mobile Advertising?

      Yes, you can notify us that you do not want us to use your information for Relevant Mobile Advertising by visiting www.vzw.com/myprivacy or by calling (866) 211-0874.

      Note: if you have a multi-line account, you must indicate your privacy choices with respect to each individual line.

      In addition, if you would like to prevent third party advertising entities from using information they have about your web browsing across sites unrelated to Verizon, including the use of this information in the Relevant Mobile Advertising program, you can opt-out at www.aboutads.info.

    2. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Opt out is a cop-out. If it's not opt-in, then it's scammy.

    3. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      you can opt-out at www.aboutads.info...

      Using this "opt-out" requires you to "opt-in" to their cookies.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a lot of work. I opted-out months ago simply by switching to T-Mobile.

      (I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing something similar, but I find Verizon more sinister, and with T-Mobile's pay-as-you-go plan I'm paying about $10/mo for the privilege.)

    5. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by Pofy · · Score: 2

      Yes, you can notify us that you do not want us to use your information for Relevant Mobile Advertising by visiting www.vzw.com/myprivacy or by calling (866) 211-0874.

      So the tracking was not at all an anonymous identifier since they obviously can link it to you when you contact them to "opt out".

    6. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by kevmeister · · Score: 1

      I went to the Verizon Wireless privacy link and both lines (my wife's and mine) were already opted out. It is very possible that I has previously heard of this and changed my settings, though it was not done recently.

      I tried to go to the " autoads" page, but I found that to opt out, I had to enable both javascript (no surprise) and cookies. Also, the opt out is shown as a beta tool, so even if I allow cookies and javascript, who knows if it will actually do anything. Hmmm.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    7. Re:No link to opt-out in article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else would they do it? This is how most opt out works. They give you a cookie with a user ID of 000000 or something similar. Direct your rage at Verizon and their policy and lawsuits against the FCC, not at the fucking cookies, you dolt.

  5. Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it works for Google, it should work for Verizon!

    Anything to make my targeted ad experience better is a win in my book. I just hope the NSA has access, too, to help fight terrorism.

    'Murica!

    1. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anything to make my targeted ad experience better

      So...that would be "no ads", right? I don't want "better" targeting; my idea of "better" and a company's idea of "better" aren't likely to match up very often.

    2. Re:Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shill. Everyone mock the parent.

  6. Only one way to stop it. by stewsters · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Glad I dropped Verizon this spring. If you have the option, vote with your money. I don't want to see this catching on.

    1. Re:Only one way to stop it. by stewsters · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, root your phone and install ad-blocking software. Restrict 3rd party cookies, because this will involve a tracking cookie if we are lucky and not some unseen communication.

    2. Re:Only one way to stop it. by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better still: hit them in the wallet. Get an all-you-can eat deal with tee mobil if your favorite areas are signal-covered. My bill dropped by 60%. Yeah, I loved Verizon coverage. But they're also a proponent of the end of net neutrality. My strong suggestion: if you're a Verizon customer, vote with your wallet and get the hell out of there. Not that GSM and LTE via t-mobile might be any less fraught with location-based crap, rather, we don't have a vote in America any more: just your $$$.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Only one way to stop it. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The ONLY thing VZ offers is coverage, and that is not enough to stay with them. The price is too high, and appears to be even higher. Part of my "three strikes"

      1) Changing plans one month before I was due, and not letting me grandfather a month early on renewal
      2) Locked Phones (and CDMA)
      3) Cost for services, even on Grandfathered plans.

      I moved on, haven't regretted the change one bit. I get coverage where I go 95% of the time. That is good enough for me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Only one way to stop it. by PRMan · · Score: 2

      And Sprint is still unlimited.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Only one way to stop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlimited shitty coverage, if you like.

    6. Re:Only one way to stop it. by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      My wife and I had been on Virginmobile since 2003, but her phone died about a year ago while she was visiting her sister out of town. Instead of calling me and asking what she should get to replace it, she signs up with Verizon on a 2 year contract and a fairly nice featurephone. They got her on a $40/mo 700min plan, which for her is a waste of about 600 minutes/month.. She's lucky to do 100 min/mo.. Just recently I discovered Ting.com, part of the old Tucows.com group. They run on Sprint's towers, and have a fantastic pricing structure.. I've moved over to it on my phone, had to sell my old Virginmobile smartphone and buy a Sprint-branded one, and have a eBay provided LG smartphone for her and will be dumping Verizon in the next few days. BTW: Ting has a deal where they will pay 25% of your ETF if you port your number over to them.. In the case of the wife's Verizon ETF its $130, so Ting will credit $31 to our next months bill. Based on her usage and mine, our Ting phone bill should be about what she was paying Verizon for that dumb featurephone..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    7. Re:Only one way to stop it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. If there is a more slimy, disgusting, corrupt bunch of douche bags than verizon I haven't met them.

    8. Re:Only one way to stop it. by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Just want to give a second to T-Mobile. While their coverage is paltry compared to Verizon, I dropped Verizon (and had a poor time with their customer service trying to get pro-rated) back in October and am quite happy with my decision, even with that extra pain.

      Since I barely use my phone I got a pay-as-you-go plan and, at least as I was informed, I can easily upgrade that to a monthly no-contract plan if I need to. (I'll be testing that next month when I upgrade briefly since I'm going on a trip I think I'll be using it a lot on.) So far I've paid about $10-15/mo, compared to my Verizon monthly bill of $75 (they required me to get a data plan since I had a smartphone, which is another reason I dropped them since I didn't want the data.)

    9. Re:Only one way to stop it. by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      From my experience, Sprint is able to offer unlimited data transfer because even if you max out the connection 24/7, you aren't going to hit 10 GB in a month. I couldn't even stream 92kB/s pandora streams.

  7. Clear cookies by tomhath · · Score: 1

    She acknowledged that a customer's mobile number has to be known to marketers so they can target ads to that specific user, but insisted that the information collected from home computers remains anonymous.

    They give out your phone number so marketers can spam you with text messages, but you remain anonymous. Got it.

    1. Re:Clear cookies by Some_Llama · · Score: 3, Informative

      they mean anonymous as in they only know what sites you visit, what you're interested in, who you are calling, who you receive calls from and how much time you do any of these...anonymous.

    2. Re:Clear cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any SPAM Text's I get are replied with a simple 'F**k off you dickheads'.
      Then I get the number blocked. Sadly that is not something that Verizon allows. I wonder why?

  8. Immediately following their permissions change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I knew something was up when they changed the permissions requirements on their mobile "My Verizon" app I used to use to pay my bill. The new permissions included, well, access to just about everything on my device. I was understandably not going to put up with that, so I reverted to using their website. Now their website is going to (attempt) to track me and then send the details of my web browsing to advertisers, uniquely ID'd and linked to my mobile phone? I'm glad I'm off contract because I am out of here.

    1. Re:Immediately following their permissions change by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Vote with your wallet. Buy a GSM / LTE phone like OnePlus ONE and get a SIM, and pay month to month. Stop playing their game. You have the ball, take it and go home.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  9. Worry worry... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    At some point I want to believe some of these abuses will open the
    door to testing of time dilation drugs that could let heinous criminals
    server 1,000 year sentences.

    There are many issues but I just wish that the likes of Mamazon would get
    it that just because I bought a watch last week that I want to buy another
    every three days for six months (and counting).

    A couple years back there was a plug in that would randomly
    visit sites and often blindly follow links so a browser history
    would have a massive pile of deniability. It seems to me
    a similar obfuscation plan is in order.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  10. and this is different from Google, how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless you firewall an android phone it calls home to mountain view reporting everything you do

    1. Re:and this is different from Google, how? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly true. You can easily use an Android phone without it contacting Google, but you have to avoid using Google's apps.

  11. Abuse? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this "anonymous, unique identifier" is a fiction, the "privacy abuse" is obvious.

    On the other hand, if the "anonymous, unique identifier" truly is anonymous, where is the "privacy abuse"? We're going to have ads served to us regardless. Better to have ads that are relevant to my interests than random, irrelevant ads.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the day and age of cheap large-scale data processing, any unique identifier that is connected to more than a few behavioral data points is inherently non-anonymous.

      Look at it this way - log2(7 billion) is approx 32. So, 32 bits of information (32 true/false questions, cleverly chosen) is all it takes to uniquely identify more or less any person on the planet. Reality is a bit messier, but also many bits will be far more useful than true/false (for instance even a "cleaned" IP that only has the leading two octets will generally narrow to a fairly precise geo region). Even the way you move your mouse can fairly accurately predict your age and gender.

      And yes, we'll see ads anyway, but that's a pretty awful status quo for us to just accept. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773

    2. Re:Abuse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Your IF condition is false. Being labelled with a "unique identifier" is the opposite of anonymous. Whether the unique identifier happens to be a person's name or a serial number acting as a substitute for a name makes no difference.

    3. Re:Abuse? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      You can't have both "anonymous" and "unique identifier". It's a logical contradiction.

      Better to have ads that are relevant to my interests than random, irrelevant ads.

      To you, perhaps. Personally, I'd much rather have the random irrelevant ads.

    4. Re:Abuse? by LookIntoTheFuture · · Score: 1

      If this "anonymous, unique identifier" is a fiction, the "privacy abuse" is obvious.

      On the other hand, if the "anonymous, unique identifier" truly is anonymous, where is the "privacy abuse"? We're going to have ads served to us regardless. Better to have ads that are relevant to my interests than random, irrelevant ads.

      I disagree. Ads that don't concern me are easier to ignore. "Targeted Advertizing" is a pretty name for "Manipulation of Potential Customers".

      --
      Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
  12. Wire tapping - time to arrest Officers of Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's unauthorized access to your computer, pure and simple, that falls under all current hacking / wire-tapping laws.

    Time for some hard time of the Officers, Board of Directors and major investors of Verizon - put a stop to this bullshit.

  13. voting with my wallet by halfEvilTech · · Score: 3, Informative

    My contract just ended finally. So I am voting with my wallet and going no contract with another carrier and shaving half my bill in the process. There are decent phones out there for the cost of a "subsidized' contract phone that still perform well for mine and my wife's usage scenario.

    so fuck you verizon

    1. Re:voting with my wallet by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I decided last week it was time to stop using Verizon, with much the same results - lower monthly bill, and more than adequate performance.

      And now I find that Verizon was planning on spying on me (more than it already does)...buh-bye, V.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:voting with my wallet by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      But where are you going to go? Do you honestly believe Verizon will be the only company doing this?

  14. OK. Which one .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    .... of you b*stards tipped them off about browser cookies?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:OK. Which one .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b*stard

      Asterisk isn't a letter, you dumb-ass bustard. Also, an ellipsis is made with three dots — not five, not two, not four — three.

      (BTW, a "bustard" is a retard that rides the short bus. It rhymes with "custard.")

    2. Re:OK. Which one .... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, a bustard is a kind of bird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:OK. Which one .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anal much today? ^^

    4. Re:OK. Which one .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three shall be the number of the dots, and the number of the dots shall be three. Four shalt thou not use, neither use thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

  15. Anonymous really? by PixelThis · · Score: 2

    So they create an "anonymous, unique identifier" when you register on their website. Anonymous for who? They obviously have a link between you, the registration on the website, and this unique identifier. Where does the anonymous bit come in?

    1. Re:Anonymous really? by JohnFen · · Score: 3

      Whenever you see the words "anonymous" and "unique" attached to "identifier", you can be 100% sure that you're being lied to.

  16. Verizon contract is up (and out!) this fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait to ditch Verizon like I did ATT before it. Scummy trashcorps.

  17. You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's fine. I use AT&T, the other half of the US telecommunications wireless duopoly because that is really the only choice I have as a US cellphone user, unless I want frustrating connection dropouts where ever I go.

    That said, I run a VPN 24/7 to a non-US VPN provider 24 hours a day on my cell phone. Kind of hard for ISPs to data mine me if they have access to precisely *none* of my data. If for some reason VPNs become persona non-grata in some way, I will switch to stealthier encryption methods. I pay ISPs to route my packets without interference, NOT to data mine me.

    1. Re: You know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you understand that word you kept using. The way you connect has no relation to a third party page registering with verizon to get your identity through the browser cookie. Another stupid slashdoter with no real understanding of how things work.

  18. "Marketing Messages" by v1 · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that there was a Politically-Correct (PC) term for "Advertising"... but that must be it?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  19. Nothing new in verizon's snooping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is how they steal contact's list, first hand :-\. One day they updated software on my Galaxy S3, installed their backup app, second one, with back up check box checked. And immediately after reboot started "backup to cloud". In other words they stole my contacts without my permission. I manually unchecked that check box. A few days later it was ON again. After a while second backup app disappeared. The first one saves everything, including wifi passwords on Google's servers. Now verizon has something more to sell, . I see only one way out, rooting. Well, partially out.

  20. Who's PC usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, my desktop PC browsing habits are going to influence mobile ads on my wife's cell phone? "Honey, you know I've been thinking - we should switch wireless carriers."

  21. Verizon - Can you hear me now? 2013 edition by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

    A slightly more serious problem with Verizon data mining...

  22. I don't see how this is not a wiretapping abuse by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this is not a wiretapping law abuse. They are collecting data above and beyond there own site and business. They should have zero right to collect where we go and what we do. The Police need a search warrant to gain this information Call or write your elected officials maybe a complaint to the FCC too. So now a business can do anything they want since we buy there products i just cant see how this is legal

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:I don't see how this is not a wiretapping abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like they're selling advertisers a service where they send the same sort of tracking cookie based browser advertisements you might see in a new browser window to your mobile device also. Tell your browser to just say no to 3rd party cookies, and that should bring an end to most all the data collection to which you object.

  23. I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    That they would stoop to this level of tracking on consumers....

    ...because, being Verizon, I assumed they had started doing it years ago!

    1. Re:I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      They have been doing it for years: http://lifehacker.com/5849589/...

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  24. And I was just about to buy fios. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckum.

  25. The whole setup should be opt-in by evanh · · Score: 1

    If the marketers are so sure that people really want this drag-netting then let those that are so keen to have it actually choose it.

  26. See ADs ? no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nowadays the only ads I see are in urban environment and rarely on TV. If a web site try to force me to see ads which I cannot forward the host to 127.0.0.1 then it stop getting visited.