bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY | All Passed On To The Customers
It should be illegal to sell customer data period. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs: | NebuAD?
Is this at all related to NebuAD? If it isn't, it sure as hell should be. That set of... fun was absolutely and completely illegal. |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
 ·WOW Internet and C..
| Why bother to comply?
You can't hire someone for $20,000 a year, pay the fine and move on doing business as normal. This is a simple business decision. Until the fine is more than the cost of complying expect companies to continue failing to comply.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by Kilroy  :You can't hire someone for $20,000 a year, pay the fine and move on doing business as normal. This is a simple business decision. Until the fine is more than the cost of complying expect companies to continue failing to comply. Agree in spirit re the fine, but where did you get the $20k figure from? |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| Huh?
Not sure the carries can play dumb, not knowing the law is not an excuse for not following it. However the regulation and the repercussions for not following it should have been made clear.
It's also possible that there is a disconnect within the companies, i.e. the legal department notified such and such, but no process was set in place, or a rogue division padded up their contributions by selling the data.
Either way, the personal data I provide to companies and the government (i.e. income tax) I no longer consider private for the simple reason that I am no longer in control of safeguarding it. It doesn't make it OK to mishandle it, but it is a fact of life. |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
 ·ViaTalk
·Comcast
|  ...
The FCC didn't fine these companies for failing to adhere to the guidelines. It fined them for failing to file a form.
While I agree 110% that it should be illegal to sell customer data, period. Requiring carriers to file a stupid piece of paper that says they don't is a joke. Especially considering the FCC never made any effort to notify any carriers about it.
If the idea is to prevent carriers from selling customer data - shouldn't they (the FCC) actually contact carriers to let them know - instead of the first time carriers hearing about the regulation being when they get fined?
It sounds to me like this is more about a way for the FCC to get $$$ than it is about protecting consumers. |
|
Vertickle
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL
1 edit | reply to major marco
Re: Why bother to comply?
13.3M / 660 = 20,151.515
It also states "as much as $20,000 for many operators" above.
Edit: Added the quote from above |
|
NetLarry
join:2007-03-18
Johnstown, PA
| Who are the 600?
Every time I read an article like this, there never a list of the "offenders" or a link to the list. I'd love to see if my perennial favorites are among them. Or the company my wife works for, for that matter. 
Does that mean the names of the offenders are proprietary?
NetLarry |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | if the fine is a joke...
if the fine is a joke for non-compliance, companies will treat it like a joke and ignore it. unless the fine is steep and punative, it costs them less to comply. |
|
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to major marco
Re: Why bother to comply?
From the article quoted above.
said by "Article" :
Apparently, many carriers figured paying the fine (as much as $20,000 for many operators) was a less strenuous process.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? |
|
Anona E
@rr.com
| Don't get Time-Warner Phone
Last year I signed for Time Warner's 3 in one package *phone, cable TV, and broadband) and not even s week after the put in the phone service, (I asked for an unlisted number) the phone was ringing off the hook with telemarketing calls, and I started getting tons of junk mail. Come to find out, not only was the phone number that they assigned me not unlisted, but they listed my full name, phone number, and address. It was a nightmare, not only due to the fact that they had apparently sold my information to every sleaze-bag cockroach of marketing company that they could find. They were also over-charging my for their 2nd rate service. Thank you for reading my rant. I just wonder if somebody wants to start a class action suit against them for unfair business practices. BTW, I am probably posting this from their network, as I had to do a little bit of "war-driving" to get broadband while out of town on business. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Nerdtalker
Re: NebuAD?
CPNI is related to telephone communications only, not your internet browsing history, emails, etc. It's basically who you call, who calls you, how long you talk for, etc. The rules protect you from getting marketing on stuff like long distance plans without your permission. They are also supposed to prevent scandals like the HP pretexting thing.
--
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." |
|
h7
@charter.com
| $20,000 is not as much as they sell the data for of course
The reason is just because the thieves (read: advertisers) will give them more than $20,000 for the data of all the thousands/millions of schmucks who are robbed every day of anything and everything that can be and is released, willingly of course by the carriers. (That's you and me by the way for the most part). Also, it seems that the FCC is at odds with congress and the president if they actually enforce internet privacy for anyone who is not a celebrity or politician. Since all those nimwits figure that since the "new-fangled" technology they do not understand, it must not be covered by the bill of rights, and what is freedom of privacy anyway? That's just one of them thar "new-fangled-terms" that doesn't apply to anyone, don't you see? :P Ironic how we have evidence (here on these boards if you haven't kept up), of a president being hacked because of not also thinking freedom of privacy is any big thang. Doh! %^$#@!&! Heh. :O
h#7 |
|
reader
@skofirm.com | reply to NetLarry
Re: Who are the 600?
»www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily···26A1.txt |
|
