Search:  

 
 
   News
newer
story category FCC Fines 600 Carriers For Privacy Issues
Many didn't adhere to new anti-pretexting regulations....
(old news - 02:01PM Friday Feb 27 2009)
tags: legal · fcc · business · privacy
The FCC this week levied more than $13.3 million in fines on some 660 small telecommunications companies for failing to adhere to new FCC guidelines regarding customer privacy. After complaints in recent years surfaced about data brokers illegally gleaning consumer information from many carriers (like in the HP scandal), the FCC crafted new regulations for carriers aimed at protecting this data, and a new reporting method aimed at ensuring carriers are protecting Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).

Carriers were supposed to do a number of things differently, including getting explicit consumer approval before handing over any data. The FCC also required that telcos assign a CPNI compliance officer, tasked with highlighting the exact measures carriers are taking to protect consumer data. Apparently, many carriers figured paying the fine (as much as $20,000 for many operators) was a less strenuous process.

According to the COO of one (compliant) carrier we spoke to, the CPNI certification process itself is simple. "It is a one page notarized document to certify that an officer of the company has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures to ensure compliance with the FCC’s CPNI rules," he tells us. The certification also requires the officer document any pretexting attempts or consumer complaints each year.

"Why a carrier would not take the minimal amount of time to file the certification, and avoid the fine, is beyond me," he says. He surmises that many carriers may not have known about the requirement (since the FCC doesn't contact carriers in advance to remind them), or cutbacks left work undone. "Perhaps the employees who were previously paid to surf the FCC website, just in case the FCC imposes a requirement on a carrier, have been laid off," he says.

"I have long stressed the importance of protecting the sensitive information that telecommunications carriers collect about their customers," interim FCC chief Michael Copps said in a prepared announcement (pdf). "The broad nature of this enforcement action hopefully will ensure substantial compliance with our CPNI rules going forward as the Commission continues to make consumer privacy protection a top priority."

Related:
  1. Thursday Morning Links
  2. Thursday Evening Links
  3. Friday Evening Links
  4. Monday Evening Links
  5. Wednesday Evening Links
  6. Friday Evening Links
  7. Verizon Hit By Internet Privacy Freak Out
  8. Wednesday Evening Links
Forums » FCC Fines 600 Carriers For Privacy Issues
view: topics flat text 
Post a:
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.
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast

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."

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, 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:

Re: Why bother to comply?

said by Kilroy See Profile :

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?

Vertickle

join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL

1 edit

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

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
·WOW Internet and C..

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?

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.
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

reader

@skofirm.com

Re: Who are the 600?

»www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily···26A1.txt

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.

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.

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
Forums » FCC Fines 600 Carriers For Privacy Issues


Sunday, 08-Nov 22:25:19 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.