Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon's Plan To Snoop On Its Customers

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the part-and-parcel dept.

Verizon 85

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."

cancel ×

85 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

monetizing corp(se) (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 6 months ago | (#46843959)

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

Wait what (1)

jameshofo (1454841) | about 6 months ago | (#46844011)

They haven't been doing that all along anyway?

Re:Wait what (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844183)

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

Re:Wait what (1)

krygny (473134) | about 6 months ago | (#46845781)

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.

Re:Wait what (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 months ago | (#46844679)

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?)

Re:Wait what (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 6 months ago | (#46845377)

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!

Re:Wait what (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 6 months ago | (#46845271)

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

?

Re:Wait what (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46846361)

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

Should Be Illegal (3, Insightful)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 6 months ago | (#46844015)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

ClownPenis (1315157) | about 6 months ago | (#46844129)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

alen (225700) | about 6 months ago | (#46844163)

and how is it different when google does it?

Re:Should Be Illegal (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844217)

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

Re:Should Be Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844487)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 6 months ago | (#46845381)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#46846363)

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

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 6 months ago | (#46847605)

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

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844579)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

0p7imu5_P2im3 (973979) | about 6 months ago | (#46844175)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844595)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (3, Insightful)

rfrenzob (163001) | about 6 months ago | (#46844227)

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

Re:Should Be Illegal (-1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46844383)

We need to update the 14th Amendment. It applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but not private citizens. You have the "right" to deprive your neighbor of his rights. Or, in the corporate states of america, you get to deprive your customers of rights. And you get to lie about it to your customers. Even the most libertarian would agree that the fraud should be actionable.

We need an Amendment to give rights to privacy. The problem is the corporate overlords have brainwashed the insane conservatives. "privacy" = baby murder. Or so I get told every time a privacy bill gets submitted in some state, and the anti-abortion activists come out to ensure the corporations can rape us with impunity. It's better that we have no rights, than a teen be able to make a decision about a fetus without her parents and ever male she's ever had sex with present.

Abortion and gun rights are the two major issues the government uses to ensure passing any law. Temporary blank checks like "for the children" and "terrorism" come and go, but abortion and gun rights stay forever.

And while we are at it, remove the references to gender in the Constitution, also in the 14th Amendment. The most bigoted part of the constitution, created to help end bigotry. Irony of ironies.

Re:Should Be Illegal (0)

schwit1 (797399) | about 6 months ago | (#46844635)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (2)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 6 months ago | (#46844705)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844799)

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... .. .

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46845237)

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.

Re:Should Be Illegal (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 6 months ago | (#46846241)

"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.

No link to opt-out in article? (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 6 months ago | (#46844019)

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.

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844141)

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.

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844617)

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

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 6 months ago | (#46845027)

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

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

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46848205)

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.

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (1)

RyoShin (610051) | about 6 months ago | (#46846127)

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.)

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (2)

Pofy (471469) | about 6 months ago | (#46846569)

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".

Re:No link to opt-out in article? (1)

kevmeister (979231) | about 6 months ago | (#46848203)

I went to the Verizon Wireless privacy [vzw.com] 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 [aboutads.info] " 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.

Sign me up! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844023)

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!

Re:Sign me up! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844567)

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.

Re:Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844697)

Shill. Everyone mock the parent.

Only one way to stop it. (3, Insightful)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#46844025)

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

Re:Only one way to stop it. (3, Interesting)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#46844057)

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.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about 6 months ago | (#46844133)

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 $$$.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 6 months ago | (#46844211)

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.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 6 months ago | (#46844327)

And Sprint is still unlimited.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844913)

Unlimited shitty coverage, if you like.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (1)

burningcpu (1234256) | about 6 months ago | (#46846463)

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.

Re:Only one way to stop it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46845739)

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

Re:Only one way to stop it. (1)

RyoShin (610051) | about 6 months ago | (#46846131)

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.)

Re:Only one way to stop it. (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 6 months ago | (#46844921)

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..

Clear cookies (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#46844031)

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.

Re:Clear cookies (3, Informative)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 6 months ago | (#46844055)

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.

Re:Clear cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844069)

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?

Immediately following their permissions change (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844045)

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.

Re:Immediately following their permissions change (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 6 months ago | (#46844233)

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.

Worry worry... (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 6 months ago | (#46844061)

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.

and this is different from Google, how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844083)

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

Re:and this is different from Google, how? (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844627)

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.

Abuse? (2, Insightful)

GPS Pilot (3683) | about 6 months ago | (#46844093)

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.

Re:Abuse? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844473)

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

See ADs ? no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46846941)

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.

Re:Abuse? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844483)

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.

Re:Abuse? (2)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844639)

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.

Re:Abuse? (1)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 6 months ago | (#46844769)

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".

Wire tapping - time to arrest Officers of Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844099)

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.

voting with my wallet (3, Informative)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 6 months ago | (#46844165)

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

Re:voting with my wallet (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46844753)

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.

Re:voting with my wallet (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 6 months ago | (#46844975)

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

OK. Which one .... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46844281)

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

Re:OK. Which one .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844761)

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.")

Re:OK. Which one .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46846313)

anal much today? ^^

Re:OK. Which one .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46846537)

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.

Anonymous really? (2)

PixelThis (690303) | about 6 months ago | (#46844569)

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?

Re:Anonymous really? (3)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46844683)

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

Verizon contract is up (and out!) this fall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844719)

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

You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46844743)

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.

Re: You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46845099)

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.

"Marketing Messages" (1)

v1 (525388) | about 6 months ago | (#46845075)

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

Nothing new in verizon's snooping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46845193)

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.

Who's PC usage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46845211)

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."

I don't see how this is not a wiretapping abuse (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 6 months ago | (#46845277)

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

Re:I don't see how this is not a wiretapping abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46847169)

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.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46845351)

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

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

And I was just about to buy fios. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46845863)

Fuckum.

The whole setup should be opt-in (1)

evanh (627108) | about 6 months ago | (#46846371)

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.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?