[dude_abides]

Thanks for the PSA.

While I understand why these things tend to be opt-out by default, I'm surprised there was no email from Verizon updating users about these new settings with a link to opt-out if they wanted to.

I used to think that the telecom industry is a lot more regulated than social network companies like Facebook, but I guess that's not really true!

[kruffin]

I received an email a while back from them basically saying they were going to start taking privileges with my data if I didn't go to a page and opt-out. I don't remember the text, but that was the gist.

[Edit] Did some digging and the email subject was: Important Update Regarding Your Privacy

It has various sections on what will be used and how with a call to action at the bottom listing your options.

Opening text: Why am I getting this notice?

Your privacy is an important priority at Verizon Wireless. Our Privacy Policy (available at www.vzw.com/myprivacy) informs you about information we collect and how we use it. Today we want to tell you about some important updates relating to two new uses of information. Verizon Wireless will begin using the information described below for (1) certain business and marketing reports and (2) making mobile ads you see more relevant. If you do not want us to use this information for these purposes, you can let us know by using one of the options described in the "Your Choices" section of this notice. This supplements our Privacy Policy.

Your choices section:

If you do not want us to use your information for any of the purposes described above, please let us know at any time by:

• Visiting www.vzw.com/myprivacy

Or

• Calling 1-866-211-0874

[draz]

I received the same kind of email from AT&T awhile ago. I immediately called them up, and asked to opt-out. After 30 minutes on the phone, the representative told me that the "feature" hasn't been rolled out yet, and I should call back a month later. Guess what? I completely forgot about it. That was probably the intention all along.... Thanks for the reminder, though!

[mdaniel]

I had a similar experience with Clear (wireless) and the binding arbitration clause in their ToS. When I called to opt out (because one cannot do so online, of course :-/ ) I was transferred 6 times and in the end the drone finally gave up and just asked if putting a note in "my file" would be sufficient. At that point, I think we were equally frustrated with one another and I settled.

But I can easily imagine some lawyer-type dreamed up such a clause but failed to tell anyone else in the business about it.

[ericcholis]

I can confirm that I also received this message some time ago.

[stephengillie]

(2) making mobile ads you see more relevant.

Does this mean they'll start replacing website ads with their own ads, like some wifi programs do?

[jlgreco]

Possibly, but I imagine it is really just lingo for "sell your information to advertisers".

Does Verizon software on phones have advertisements? Maybe they are going to start doing that.

[fleitz]

They are definitely more regulated than social network companies, fortunately though they've captured the regulator as predicted by economics so they get to seek rent instead of worrying about regulators.

The telecom industry has so effectively captured their regulator that when they are caught tapping phones without warrant they are exempted from lawsuits instead of prosecuted vigorously.

If you offered a non-compliant unlimited data/voice/voicemail plan for $20 a month you'd have people lined up around the block, no one would care your phone won't work with CALEA and no one would care that your address wasn't in the 911 database. You'd also be extremely profitable using off the shelf hardware like software radios, and non-compliant open source telephony software.

[Evbn]

The telcos weren't wiretapping for profit, but as an agent of the government. You got the direction of power backwards.

[fleitz]

I don't think you've seen a wiretapping bill...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/04/03/these-a... "Wiretaps cost hundreds of dollars per target every month, generally paid at daily or monthly rates. To wiretap a customer’s phone, T-Mobile charges law enforcement a flat fee of $500 per target"

[jrockway]

Still cheaper than texting!

[lhnn]

I'd be happy my phone wasn't compatible with CALEA, I might care about 911 (else I'd have another tool/app to serve me) and as long as I can communicate, I'm not to concerned about scary "open source" stuff.

[nikcub]

This is a big deal. The FTC will almost certainly investigate it and if it turns out to be as bad as described, will likely take action.

The process might take a while, but they eventually get results. They rely on the public to report incidents:

http://www.ftc.gov/multimedia/video/scam-watch/file-a-compla...

Having multiple people report a claim is good. Also, capturing screenshots etc. of everything you find,since they have a tendency to change and disappear quickly :)

[nobody_nowhere]

Unlikely. They know all about this already. I'd recommend contacting your member of congress. Also, it's the FCC, not the FTC, who regulates phone companies.

I'm familiar with the targeting technology that's being rolled out and the people/companies involved with the project. They've extensively briefed both FCC and FTC plus key members of congress, and have received a tacit blessing to proceed because of a double-blind hardware technology involved to limit the identification of individuals, and the measures taken so far to alert consumers.

Not to say that it's good or bad to do this. But a company like verizon isn't going to proceed without covering their ass from a regulatory perspective.

[TheCapn]

I'm Canadian so obviously our privacy laws will be different but when I worked at a Telecomm we were told that in order to be compliant with the law we could only use customer data for what they has explicitly agreed to. Any changes to what we want we need to have them approve it again.

[pc86]

I specifically remember getting a letter in the mail a few weeks ago alerting me to this.