[smeyer]

I'm not clear why you think it would be illegal. There may be rules against not allowing people to opt out, I don't know. But when you ask "How can they discriminate like that?", there's nothing illegal about discriminating on the basis of credit or willingness to pay for a more expensive product.

[ewzimm]

I can understand discriminating on quality or something like that, but we're talking about not being able to opt out of having your personal information sold. It seems like there should be some kind of a law where that has to be made absolutely clear. It doesn't even seem to be buried anywhere in the Terms of Service, which say:

"Verizon Wireline consumers and certain business customers may opt-out by calling 1-866-483-9700. Verizon Wireless consumer and certain business customers may call 1-800-333-9956."

Only after calling that number are you told you are ineligible because you are prepaid.

This is advertised as a prepaid account, not a personal-information-selling subsidized account. It's also not even really competitive with other plans. Verizon gives you up to 1GB/month for $45, only with recurring payments, while Cricket gives you 10GB 4G with unlimited throttled data for $55. Unfortunately, Verizon has a monopoly in most of my area. T-Mobile and Sprint don't operate here, and AT&T is spotty.

[smeyer]

I'm attracting a lot of downvotes, and I feel like people think I'm supporting Verizon. I agree with you in that I think they're being scummy, but I guess I was just saying that when you ask "How can they discriminate like that?" the answer is that lots of scummy things aren't illegal. I agree it might be nice to see much stronger privacy laws in this area, but they don't exist yet and that's most of what I was trying to say. I think I thought you were saying that you thought it was illegal ("isn't there a law...") whereas you were really just saying you thought it should be illegal.

[ewzimm]

I do think it should be illegal, but "isn't it illegal?" was a genuine question. I don't know the specifics, but I'm surprised there isn't some legal requirement. You can't even send e-mail without allowing an opt-out, and every ad network I know of has an opt-out policy, so sending tracking information to every website you visit and selling that information with no option to opt-out just seems over the top and out of step with what everyone else offers.

[keypusher]

You want to know how to opt out? You cancel your contract. Verizon is under no obligation to provide you with phone and internet access, ad-free or otherwise. They offer a product on the free market, and if you don't like that product, you should not buy it. While I think their policies and attitude toward privacy is despicable, accusing them of doing anything illegal is simply incorrect.

[uptown]

While what you said may seem logically correct, there are a myriad of privacy protections that corporations are expected to adhere to regarding the information customers entrust to them. One reason for these protections is that the "resolution" you've suggested --- that the customer can simply choose not to use their services --- provides no protections against future-use of information. Say a customer chooses a vendor that sells his information after he ends his service with them. Under your strategy - the customer would have absolutely no recourse since he has no leverage against that vendor. He's already "walked" so to speak - yet they still may have information of value about that customer.

Take another example. A medical facility cannot take customer information about a person with a specific ailment and sell that information to advertisers for the purpose of earning a commission on the sale of those targeted ads. There are laws forbidding how that information is shared.

The following link outlines some of the state and federal laws specific to California, but each state has their own, and the federal laws obviously apply to the entire United States.

http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/privacy-laws

[M2Ys4U]

>I'm not clear why you think it would be illegal.

Consent matters. In Europe it would most certainly be illegal.

[dwightgunning]

What's Europe got to do with this?

[anon1385]

Because somebody seemed surprised that people expected this to be illegal. The fact that it is illegal in a large number of countries is a useful datapoint, and shows that the initial reaction of "shouldn't this be illegal" isn't completely off the wall.