Verizon’s “supercookies” violated net neutrality transparency rule

Verizon agrees to $1.35M fine and will make it easier to avoid tracking cookies.

Read the whole story

 

[elizibar]

Oh well that fine will surely stop them from doing anything like this in the future.

Scale it up to 1.35 billion dollars and you might be in the ballpark to deter them. Maybe. Probably not.

 

[theJonTech]

that's like fining me a $1.35

sure taught them a lesson!

 

[Nowicki]

Ooh those big companies got the taste of big data, and apparently the first line was free. Im sure they will look for their next fix in another place.

 

[THavoc]

One offense down, approximately 10,000 more to go.

 

[Velvet G]

Such a measly sum of money for them to pay. I don't know which is worse, this or fining celebrities in Hollywood a whopping $100 for water violations during a horrible drought.

I'd be amazed if anyone at Verizon even noticed that money going away. So what does that come out to, like a dollar a customer or less. Tack it on as a "tax" to every bill and the people they spied on will end up paying for it.

 

[d4Njv]

I'm astonished that VZ hasn't put out a PR statement decrying the restraint on "innovation".

 

[Cumulonimbus Maximus]

1.35 million? Surely with the revenue they generated from such antics this was still profitable, even with the fine. Where the hell is the disincentive to not do this going forward?

 

[bthylafh]

THANKS OBAMA

edit: the joke is that without Obama appointing Wheeler, this wouldn't have happened. Sigh.

 

[THavoc]

d4Njv[/url]":1ijp034s]I'm astonished that VZ hasn't put out a PR statement decrying the restraint on "innovation".

I think they are waiting for Congress to "act".

Yes, it is not easy to say that without laughing.

 

[helel ben shachar]

Verizon was fined the rough equivalent a big campaign contribution? That's kind of sad on a whole bunch of levels.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Yeah, a whole million dollars. If you're not even going to fine them as much as they profited from doing it, they'll keep doing it.

 

[theoilman]

How about opt in consent for adding the tags in the first place? Regardless of if verizon shares your data outside, those tags are a security nightmare.

 

[TimmyD]

Only $1.35 million? That's not even a dollar a customer.

 

[nononsense]

I think that settlement is missing a couple of zeroes.

 

[GrandMasterBirt]

1.5 million? HAH! Verizon farts more money than that.

Why do we fine companies significantly less than the actual income from the illegal feature? It's basically showing companies that illegal moves = profit, pay a bit back, keep the difference.

 

[azazel1024]

As soon as I was aware of it and Verizon enabled the ability to turn them off, I did.

I honestly don't/didn't believe that did anything and they persisted.

Maybe I am too jaded, but I figure every time anyone "offers me an opt out" of something that reduces my privacy or allows them to track me, etc. it is simply a feel good lever connected to nothing.

 

[azazel1024]

GrandMasterBirt[/url]":2ehkyctn]1.5 million? HAH! Verizon farts more money than that.

Why do we fine companies significantly less than the actual income from the illegal feature? It's basically showing companies that illegal moves = profit, pay a bit back, keep the difference.

I think in a lot of cases it is regulatory agency "cost of pursuing compliance". I don't think they are going financial penalty route. I believe it is the "hey, you aren't supposed to do that, now stop" with the caveat that if they told you to stop and you don't stop, then the "big guns" come out. They'll take away a week of profit instead of a few hours.

 

[ars diavoli]

GrandMasterBirt[/url]":1zcohxml]1.5 million? HAH! Verizon farts more money than that.

Why do we fine companies significantly less than the actual income from the illegal feature? It's basically showing companies that illegal moves = profit, pay a bit back, keep the difference.

It's called a kick-back.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg]

theJonTech[/url]":2krnckb9]that's like fining me a $1.35

sure taught them a lesson!

Exactly this!

Until these fines are able to drop stock prices nothing will change. I wouldn't be surprised if in Verizon's budget for this project there was a line item for fines to be paid.

 

[Nowicki]

WhyNotZoidberg[/url]":39zmy0b8]

theJonTech[/url]":39zmy0b8]that's like fining me a $1.35

sure taught them a lesson!

Exactly this!

Until these fines are able to drop stock prices nothing will change. I wouldn't be surprised if in Verizon's budget for this project there was a line item for fines to be paid.

I believe that criminal liability would affect that. I couldnt imagine being indicted would help a company stock value even if it was profitable in the action.

 

[Munden]

theJonTech[/url]":2e4bb7fw]that's like fining me a $1.35

sure taught them a lesson!

Yup. The "lesson" began in December 2014 so lets say 14 months, being conservative. My guess is that they surpassed the $1.35 million they "settled" on many moons ago on legal fees alone.

Can't we make them a public utility yet?

 

[Statistical]

Just to provide a direct comparison.

Verizon had $28.24B pretax income last year. This fine is 0.005% of their annual income (not gross revenue but actual income before taxes). The median household income in the US is $51,939. 0.005% of the median household income would be $2.48.

If the maximum fine for speeding was $2.48 we would see a lot more speeding.

 

[puppies]

Sigh. How could something that sounds so good (supercookies) be so bad? Truly, innocence is dead.

 

[boidsonly]

Those of you on the VZW network might want to closely scrutinize your bills. You will probably end up paying for this...

 

[chocoruacal]

cslawren[/url]":kxk5v0bu]1.35 million? Surely with the revenue they generated from such antics this was still profitable, even with the fine. Where the hell is the disincentive to not do this going forward?

Remember Citizen, ill-gotten gains are only forfeited when they ill-getting is done by DNA Citizens, not Corporate Citizens. Carry on now.

 

[ichbinkgod]

I really want to know how much they made from the targeted advertising. Seems like the fine should be at least slightly higher than that number.

 

[truthyboy15]

boidsonly[/url]":2s59li2c]Those of you on the VZW network might want to closely scrutinize your bills. You will probably end up paying for this...

Verizon already charges a "Regulatory Charge" which is Verizon's way of recouping costs dealing with the feds.

 

[Nowicki]

edit for posted to Wrong page

 

[Akemi]

elizibar[/url]":15cgn9t6]Oh well that fine will surely stop them from doing anything like this in the future.

Scale it up to 1.35 billion dollars and you might be in the ballpark to deter them. Maybe. Probably not.

The fine should be whatever Verizon profited from the use of supercookies (based on a forensic analysis of their financial data) along with an additional punitive fine. If Verizon still nets a profit after this current fine, it's just the cost of doing business and nothing changes.

 

[Sasparilla]

theoilman[/url]":mvqwpkvf]How about opt in consent for adding the tags in the first place? Regardless of if verizon shares your data outside, those tags are a security nightmare.

Based on the end of the article, it really doesn't sound like much is resolved for the consumer at all - Verizon can still insert them at will (and will surely do so), but they have to get Opt-In to share / sell the data. Nothing about stopping these at all.

So a swing and a miss for the FCC here. It looks like we need legislation to stop this.

"Verizon Wireless is notifying consumers about its targeted advertising programs, will obtain customers’ opt-in consent before sharing UIDH with third parties, and will obtain customers’ opt-in or opt-out consent before sharing UIDH internally within the Verizon corporate family," the FCC said.

 

[jdale]

Meager fine aside, it's an interesting precedent. It seems the FCC is applying this rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 :

(c) Confidentiality of customer proprietary network information
(1) Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

But considering "customer proprietary network information" to include the URLs you access. While I very much like that interpretation, it's not obvious from the definition in law which is:

(1) Customer proprietary network information
The term “customer proprietary network information” means—
(A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship; and
(B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier;
except that such term does not include subscriber list information.

I suppose it depends on the inclusion of the word "destination" there. If that applies, ISPs are forbidden from selling or sharing information about where you browse.

 

[JumpNDesign]

Wow. Not only have they been getting away with it for almost 4 years, they straight up didn't comply with the court and kept running it anyway, saying they 'plan to' offer an opt out. Not only that but the courts gave them 3 years to comply!

That's 7 years in order to come up with $1.35 million for a multi-billion dollar company...I just...sigh.

As a customer, this frustrates me knowing I essentially have no recourse.

 

[rovetti1982]

I worked for Verizon for a year, and it is one of the most shameful experiences in my life. Any time you walk in to a Verizon store, they are trying to fuck you. Don't do it. I wasn't allowed to help a customer with a problem without trying to sell them something. Do yourself a favor and upgrade online. It's cheaper and you don't have to deal with the sales vultures.

 

[JWoody907]

Im glad to see that the FCC is going after the problem, but they're still playing with kid-gloves. They need to get aggressive in regulating the industry and really go after these multi-billion dollar offenders with fines and compressed timelines to fix themselves.

Telling Verizon it has 3 years to change its practices to protect consumers is a travesty. What if Shell Oil was dumping thousands of gallons of crude into protected waters? Would we give them 3 years amnesty before they had to stop (or face another paltry fine)?

 

[Decoherent]

Just to provide a direct comparison.

Verizon had $28.24B pretax income last year. This fine is 0.005% of their annual income (not gross revenue but actual income before taxes). The median household income in the US is $51,939. 0.005% of the median household income would be $2.48.

If the maximum fine for speeding was $2.48 we would see a lot more speeding.

As noted by JumpNDesign a few posts up, this is for 7 years of this crap, so you'd really be looking at a fine of $0.35. Oh the horror!

 

[asjk]

EFF involved in the decision?

 

[DNick]

What's $1.35 million to Verizon, 15th on the Fortune 500? Maybe a few minutes worth of operating revenue? A tiny percentage of the money they made with the illegal practice? I like the way they do it in the EU, where a fine could be 3-6% of gross annual revenue.

 

[Garst]

Before having its customers opt-in to any tracking, Verizon should be required to have customers go into a store and give a physical signature that covers only that they want to be tracked. And while I said "physical" signature, it can be given on on a signature pad. And if Verizon is concerned about how it can have non-lawyer employees will help non-lawyer customers about what they are signing, they can have employees say, "this is an option document to give Verizon the ability to track everything you do on its network. You are not required to sign this if you do not want to grant this ability."

Really, every company should be required to do that before tracking anyone.

 

[vassago]

Call me crazy, but I don't want an ISP to have "advertising programs" or be a content provider. I want them to provide me internet. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That way, their only interest is providing me damn good internet, no excuses.
Oh... I think I see the problem.