Verizon Didn't Bother To Write a Privacy Policy For Its 'Privacy Protecting' VPN (vice.com)

Jason Koebler writes: Verizon is rolling out a new Virtual Private Network service called Safe Wi-Fi it developed in conjunction with McAfee. According to Verizon, the $4 per month service "protects your privacy and blocks ad tracking, creating a secure Wi-Fi connection anywhere in the world." But the company didn't even write a privacy policy for the product: Verizon's terms of service directs all of its VPN users to the general McAfee privacy policy governing all of its products. That policy, in turn, states that McAfee and Verizon have the right to collect an ocean of data on the end user, including carrier data, Bluetooth device IDs, mobile device ID, mobile advertising identifiers, MAC address, IMEI data, and more. The policy explicitly says that browsing history can be used to help target ads at you.

Comments

Sneaky sneaky

[TimothyHollins]

So it protects the user from anyone other than Verizon and McAfee from collecting data?

Smart. Dick move, but smart. It's like a C-level Dracula type evil.

Re:Sneaky sneaky

[Anonymous Coward]

but does not prevent them from selling your data.

How so? When has a privacy policy ever prevented a company from pimping customer data? And when has there ever been a business being held accountable to doing so?

Seriously, user data is a valuable commodity. Even if current management is all nice and everything, the next management team may think different.

Look at Amazon. Bezos guards Amazon's customers' data like his own gold pile; which it is - for now.

But one day, Amazon won't be so dominate. Bezos will be gone and whoever is in charge may want to do whatever he can to make money.

I've seen it time and time again - even among successful companies.

We consumers are just cannon fodder to be abused and used and we just have to suck it up.

Re:Sneaky sneaky

[DarkOx]

That's only if it works and it probably doesn't. It takes a lot more than just VPN to provide any reasonable level of privacy or defense against ad tracking these days.

So basically its sounds like a way for VZ to charge you an extra $4/mo to do something that costs them darn near nothing but provides users with a false sense of security. I'd not be surprised if in a week or two we will learn they used a null cipher for 'performance' as well .

Re:Sneaky sneaky

[omnichad]

There are some public wifi hotspots that I wouldn't use without a VPN just to encrypt my traffic from casual sniffing. Then again, my Android handset does that automatically. For Free. The question is whether Verizon blocks this functionality just to sell this crippled $4/mo. service.

Re:Sneaky sneaky

[DaMattster]

There are some public wifi hotspots that I wouldn't use without a VPN just to encrypt my traffic from casual sniffing. Then again, my Android handset does that automatically. For Free. The question is whether Verizon blocks this functionality just to sell this crippled $4/mo. service.

With a little know-how, it's trivial to do this yourself. I set up my own OpenVPN server and loaded the OpenVPN client on my phone and laptop. I don't have to pay no stinkin' 4.00 per month fee.

Re:Sneaky sneaky

[Zmobie]

You raise a very important point and distinction many don't consider. Privacy policies are just that, policies. This effectively means the company doesn't intend to engage in this behavior right that second and that it is self-enforced. Nothing actually prevents them from collecting troves of information over time, changing the policy one day and then selling it off to the highest bidder. One might be able to initiate some type of civil suit, but the burden of proof to get over the preponderance of evidence is going to be a bit rough. If you can't prove that was their intent from the start, they get off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Personally this is why I get so sideways with people insisting there doesn't need to be regulations against this type of behavior. Typically they hide behind the old chestnut, "regulations put undue hardship on the companies" but given how easily they can ruin hundreds of thousands if not millions of people's lives (hello Equifax) it seems insane to not put the weight of real legal threats on them for doing so. Financial incentive only goes so far in my opinion. They have some financial incentive to protect information to a point, but eventually investing beyond a particular level cuts into their outrageous margins too much. Then, when they do something stupid or a big buyer comes along and wants that information about their customers, it is the people they duped into handing it over that pay the price. Hell, some of these services you can't even avoid using with becoming a fucking hermit/mountain man. Again with Equifax, how exactly did I opt into them running the credit services and collecting massive volumes of information on me just because I was born into the damn world?.

Smart phones & privacy?

[DogDude]

If you're using a smart phone, chances are, you already don't care about privacy.

Re:so whatb

[DaMattster]

most VPN services omit the fact that you are not doing a goddamn thing but masking your IP

No, your data is encrypted in transit until it exits the VPN. Then it's fair game unless browsing to an https-enabled website.

Re: Stop, Just Stop

[Zmobie]

This is not protected as free speech. Not at all. If that were the case there could be no law against clandestine spying in general as long as it is not for a foreign entity. And hello corporate espionage laws! They are somewhat narrow in scope, but they still protect companies from unscrupulous information gathering methods being used against them.