Verizon disputed this not because the fine was in ANY way impactful, but because they wanted to push to see if they could legally do it without any repercussions. In their last quarter alone they made over 9k million USD, if I'm reading it right [0].
> Verizon chose to pay fine, giving up right to jury trial
40Million fine is a cost of doing business, but my question is if people's data was sold without consent, why is a class action not taken against them? Where is the right of the injured party here ?
Will this protection extend to automobile companies ? Mobile Apps ? Mobile OSs ? I have lost track of the number of leakage points for location data into the tarball of databrokers.
cm2187 2 hours ago [-]
Not much of a protection. They will just add one more line in the 50 pages terms of service you have to agree to to get a contract.
comex 4 hours ago [-]
Nope. The court is applying an old law that specifically applies to carriers providing "telecommunications services", no one else.
(Incidentally, even the term "telecommunications service" only encompasses voice call service, not mobile data or SMS. The FCC tried to reclassify Internet access as a telecommunications service during the Obama and Biden administrations, in order to get authority to impose net neutrality rules, but it was ultimately overturned in court.)
m463 3 hours ago [-]
> "telecommunications service" only encompasses voice call service
I wonder if those helpful text messages from some company can locate you?
I've heard that tow truck companies can find your location because it is somewhat like and emergency.
by the way, verizon is just plain evil.
I remember years ago when they would add identifying cookies to all web requests outgoing from your phone to identify your specific handset. (search "verizon supercookie")
staplers 37 minutes ago [-]
I've heard that tow truck companies can find your location because it is somewhat like and emergency.
Anyone can find your location if they pay one of the data brokers who resell the info the cell carrier sells.
Close but the Obama 2015 reclassification was actually upheld. Law of the land from 2015 to 2018.
Ajit Pai undid it, a court said reverting was fine because DNS.
Biden FCC took forever to reclassify and then lost in a Trumpy circuit court. Advocates didn't appeal largely because the courts are so screwed now and don't want an awful Supreme Court ruling.
But it's very clear for the law that internet communications actually are telecom, and I suspect we'll see this revisited in the future
fn-mote 7 hours ago [-]
I like this part:
[denied because…]
> Verizon had, and chose to forgo, the opportunity for a jury trial in federal court.
petertodd 7 hours ago [-]
That was probably a sound legal strategy. Selling location data without consent is obviously unethical behavior that should be illegal. A jury is more likely to rule on the basis of that; with a judge maybe there's a chance that a technicality in the law leads to a ruling in their favor.
Anyway, this practice should be criminalized with companies and their employees receiving criminal penalties like jail time.
kevin_thibedeau 6 hours ago [-]
It won't because the US government relies on third parties to funnel data into its panopticon as a constitutional side step.
thrwaway55 5 hours ago [-]
Replace employee with exec. An employee may need a job and can be coerced for reasons they don't control.
petertodd 3 hours ago [-]
"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.
Besides, one reason why they can be coerced is because these actions aren't clearly illegal. If they are, the employee can just report what they're being asked to do to the police. Workplace safety has been dramatically improved in western countries simply by making many unsafe practices illegal and creating entities to report illegal work to. While this did require criminal charges for some managers and employees, because safety has improved so much, they're really not that common.
I remember when I had workplace safety training as a poorly paid university lab monitor. They made clear that I had potential criminal legal liability if I allowed egregiously unsafe things to happen. So they didn't.
soulofmischief 5 hours ago [-]
That same position legitimizes basically all police brutality.
akoboldfrying 4 hours ago [-]
It doesn't legitimize all police brutality, only whatever amount of it is necessary to keep your job.
And legitimising this is appropriate. The only other position -- requiring people to behave in a way that doesn't meet their basic needs for survival -- would be inappropriate. It is the responsibility of those in power to prevent society from degrading to a point where police are forced to be violent in order to keep their jobs.
Frieren 3 hours ago [-]
If a doctor fucks up is liable for bad practice.
If an architect fucks up is liable for bad practice.
CEOs, CTOs, etc. of organizations with the budged of small countries can be stupid, unknowledgeable and reckless and there are no consequences (unless it affects shareholders money). Executives should be held legally accountable of the damage that their companies do.
Accountability is required for a civilized society. When the people with the most power do not need to follow any rule we get into anarchy and chaos. Just watch the news to see that it is already happening.
zelphirkalt 60 minutes ago [-]
What makes this more infuriating is that they always point to their additional responsibilities, when it comes to pay/salary. Oh yes, they need to manage sooo much responsibility! But when these things happen, no one seems to be taking the responsibility. Very strange. Almost as if some people only want the upsides of "responsibility".
slowhadoken 6 hours ago [-]
I feel like a cop looking at this company’s behavior. “If you’re not guilty why are you acting guilty, Verizon?”
autoexec 4 hours ago [-]
The courts have decided that Verizon selling location data without consent is illegal but I'd be willing to bet that the courts haven't decided that it should be unprofitable.
I'd be surprised if Verizon and the other companies haven't made more than enough money by breaking the law back in 2018 to rake in a nice profit even after the fines they're trying to weasel out of paying now.
I have no doubt that they're still selling our data one way or another anyway. We know for a fact that they've never stopped selling data to to law enforcement, they just require a rubber stamped court order/subpoena to do it.
Assuming they'll lose this, they'll probably move to coercing the selling of your location data as "part of doing business with them." Sigh.
sidcool 5 hours ago [-]
Thanks court.
bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago [-]
what are the ways you can poison or fake your location data, like if Verizon in response to this decides to offer a cheaper plan for sharing your location data?
codeduck 2 hours ago [-]
gps spoofer perhaps?
silisili 2 hours ago [-]
It's much more likely they're selling tower triangulation data, but let me know if that theory is wrong.
GJim 45 minutes ago [-]
So, when will 'murka wake up and protect its people with real data privacy laws like (or even better than) the GDPR?
cwmoore 4 hours ago [-]
Retroactively assign all future data value to...the next president?
electric_muse 4 hours ago [-]
Carriers have been selling this stuff forever. The only surprise is that they were arrogant enough to argue it was outright legal rather than hiding behind “user consent” fine print.
The bigger issue is that every telecom treats location data as an asset class. If you think a court ruling will make them suddenly respect privacy, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. They’ll just bury consent deeper in the UX until it looks indistinguishable from compliance.
Terr_ 15 minutes ago [-]
As a fun but impractical thought-experiment, imagine the differences in a world with a rule like: "If you voluntarily share data about a customer which becomes instrumental in crime committed against that customer, the company is considered an accomplice to the crime."
malux85 4 hours ago [-]
How much did they make selling the data?
If it's greater than the fine, and they suffer no other consequences (e.g. nobody goes to jail) then the fine is just cost-of-business.
The fine must be greater than what they made, AND some executives or management needs to be held responsible - at least fired.
Otherwise it will just keep happening.
tonyhart7 4 hours ago [-]
even with user consent, they should ban it period
Workaccount2 5 hours ago [-]
Good.
Now apply it to Flock.
SilverElfin 5 hours ago [-]
Great. Now jail the executives, pierce the veil, seize their assets.
slowhadoken 6 hours ago [-]
Pretty soon you’re going to need insurance for your paycheck. When people are poorest that’s when corporate types turn the screws lmfao smh
Rendered at 08:38:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
> Verizon chose to pay fine, giving up right to jury trial
40Million fine is a cost of doing business, but my question is if people's data was sold without consent, why is a class action not taken against them? Where is the right of the injured party here ?
[0 ]https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/quarterly-reports/2q...
(Incidentally, even the term "telecommunications service" only encompasses voice call service, not mobile data or SMS. The FCC tried to reclassify Internet access as a telecommunications service during the Obama and Biden administrations, in order to get authority to impose net neutrality rules, but it was ultimately overturned in court.)
I wonder if those helpful text messages from some company can locate you?
I've heard that tow truck companies can find your location because it is somewhat like and emergency.
by the way, verizon is just plain evil.
I remember years ago when they would add identifying cookies to all web requests outgoing from your phone to identify your specific handset. (search "verizon supercookie")
Source: https://www.fogdatascience.com/
Ajit Pai undid it, a court said reverting was fine because DNS.
Biden FCC took forever to reclassify and then lost in a Trumpy circuit court. Advocates didn't appeal largely because the courts are so screwed now and don't want an awful Supreme Court ruling.
But it's very clear for the law that internet communications actually are telecom, and I suspect we'll see this revisited in the future
[denied because…] > Verizon had, and chose to forgo, the opportunity for a jury trial in federal court.
Anyway, this practice should be criminalized with companies and their employees receiving criminal penalties like jail time.
Besides, one reason why they can be coerced is because these actions aren't clearly illegal. If they are, the employee can just report what they're being asked to do to the police. Workplace safety has been dramatically improved in western countries simply by making many unsafe practices illegal and creating entities to report illegal work to. While this did require criminal charges for some managers and employees, because safety has improved so much, they're really not that common.
I remember when I had workplace safety training as a poorly paid university lab monitor. They made clear that I had potential criminal legal liability if I allowed egregiously unsafe things to happen. So they didn't.
And legitimising this is appropriate. The only other position -- requiring people to behave in a way that doesn't meet their basic needs for survival -- would be inappropriate. It is the responsibility of those in power to prevent society from degrading to a point where police are forced to be violent in order to keep their jobs.
CEOs, CTOs, etc. of organizations with the budged of small countries can be stupid, unknowledgeable and reckless and there are no consequences (unless it affects shareholders money). Executives should be held legally accountable of the damage that their companies do.
Accountability is required for a civilized society. When the people with the most power do not need to follow any rule we get into anarchy and chaos. Just watch the news to see that it is already happening.
I'd be surprised if Verizon and the other companies haven't made more than enough money by breaking the law back in 2018 to rake in a nice profit even after the fines they're trying to weasel out of paying now.
I have no doubt that they're still selling our data one way or another anyway. We know for a fact that they've never stopped selling data to to law enforcement, they just require a rubber stamped court order/subpoena to do it.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.3fa...
The bigger issue is that every telecom treats location data as an asset class. If you think a court ruling will make them suddenly respect privacy, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. They’ll just bury consent deeper in the UX until it looks indistinguishable from compliance.
If it's greater than the fine, and they suffer no other consequences (e.g. nobody goes to jail) then the fine is just cost-of-business.
The fine must be greater than what they made, AND some executives or management needs to be held responsible - at least fired.
Otherwise it will just keep happening.
Now apply it to Flock.