
Verizon Up offers rewards in exchange for customers’ personal information - forgingahead
https://www.wsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-an-advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first-1504603801
======
ntsplnkv2
Is this not what all rewards programs are? How is this different from the
local supermarket rewards card that I have, which "rewards" me with coupons
targeted towards my purchasing habits?

I'm not sure how to better inform people on these issues.

~~~
chadgeidel
It's similar to other rewards programs but "Customers must give the carrier
access to their web-browsing history, app usage and location data" is a lot
more information about me than "what I've bought at <local supermarket> in the
past year".

~~~
oddlyaromatic
>"what I've bought at <local supermarket> in the past year".

They get so much more than that. If you use a credit card at the store, the
record now knows about this card, and any other credit card you have ever used
while using that rewards program. This can all then be connected to other
databases that track personal credit card spending in similar ways. A
surprisingly detailed profile is quite likely to be out there on all of us,
even if we are not always identified by name. If you have last 4 digits of a
card plus zip code... You have a whole lot.

My memory is a little vague on the sources for this but I will try to dig up
some relevant stories.

~~~
gnicholas
I believe it is illegal (at least in some states) to use the card information
for anything other than processing the payment. That is, I believe they cannot
use it to track you and your purchase. This is one of the main reasons there
are loyalty cards — to get you to explicitly consent to tracking.

edit: If they are allowed to track based on credit card, this would be a good
reason to use Apple Pay, or some other payment method that generates a unique
"card number" for every purchase.

~~~
pmiller2
I see. So, Google's use of CC data to track whether their ads work [0] is
illegal, huh? I find it hard to believe they would announce doing it if so.

Edit: so you just want to hand over your info to Apple instead of some other
big corporation?

[0]:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/01/google_tr...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/01/google_tracks_people_offline_to_see_if_online_ads_work.html)

~~~
muninn_
I have yet to be worried about Apple advertisements and tracking. Any reason I
should be?

------
__warlord__
It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only
accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction
just in the name of profit.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
If we stop punishing companies when they have a bad quarter, this probably
would not be happening.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their shareholders.

But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit
good behavior, that might move the needle.

~~~
cratermoon
> Nyah, they still have a singular mission to make money for their
> shareholders.

That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School
economists in the 1970s.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-
the-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-
maximizing-shareholder-
value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)

~~~
pmiller2
Not unless they hopped in their time machine and went back to infiltrate the
Michigan Supreme Court in 1919. _Dodge v. Ford Motor Company_ [0] established
the principle in law almost 100 years ago.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co).

~~~
mindcrime
That would only be a binding precedent in the State of Michigan though, no?
And from the same Wikipedia page:

 _In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including
AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general
legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is
expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to
any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole_

------
hodder
As far as disgusting invasions of privacy go, at least in this case, the
customer has a choice of whether or not to opt in. Usually, megacorps simply
siphon the data and use it however they wish, regardless of what the customer
wants.

Still, this pushes society further along the spectrum away from valuing one's
own privacy.

~~~
wang_li
This is the way to go, make it a voluntary exchange. But in return there
should be controls on price hikes so that they don't push everyone to
"voluntarily" exchange their privacy to avoid the $10,000 monthly bill.

------
TCM
I think a bunch of people are giving Verizon a hard time for this program but
it at least has a much better value proposition than any other advertising
system most people interact with. Google and Facebook slurp all your data with
the justification that they will be able to personalize it better and you get
nothing in return. Hopefully this may set a precedent so that others may
follow.

~~~
josefresco
What you _get in return_ , is the ability/privilege to use Google, and
Facebook. I'm not saying it's worth it, but it's not _nothing_.

------
marsRoverDev
This is going to be a natural result of the incoming GDPR. My own startup will
be doing something similar in order to remain compliant.

You now have to ask politely for people's data, and then give them a carrot in
return for it.

~~~
iancarroll
Verizon is US-only; the GDPR doesn’t seem applicable.

~~~
marsRoverDev
It is applicable if Verizon have a single EU citizen on their books, which
they do; if the EU wish to pursue them I'm sure there is some way they could
be held accountable.

I am not so sure that american companies can just "hide" from this, they are
actually quite exposed. Delta airlines, for example, appear to be quite
worried by it internally, and are making changes to suit.

~~~
grabeh
A large airline by its nature will provide services to individuals around the
world. It is a clear candidate for the GDPR to apply to it in respect of those
activities as a result.

The scope of GDPR extends to entities providing services to individuals in the
European Union so is not limited solely to citizens. Additionally, if an EU
citizen is in the US and uses a US service provider's services, then that US
service provider is not within the scope of the GDPR.

The legal disclaimer on the Verizon Up specifically states that the offer is
only available to US residents.

On that basis I would say that Verizon, in relation to this specific
programme, does not appear subject to the GDPR.

I don't know about the full extent of their services however so may be subject
to GDPR if they satisfy the Art 3 GDPR requirements ([https://gdpr-
info.eu/art-3-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/)).

------
victor106
From the article

"For every $300 customers spend on their Verizon bills, they receive one Up
credit, which can be used for rewards such as Uber rides, four free months of
Apple Music or chances to win tickets to see performers such as Lady Gaga."

"Verizon makes it clear during the sign-up process what data consumers are
giving up: Information about their demographics and interests, what websites
they visit, what apps and features they use, and their location."

\- signup for it and use a VPN. You get all the benefits with sharing minimal
data.

~~~
sp332
That only solves one of the issues listed. It won't help with location,
demographics, or what apps you use.

------
pnutjam
I don't think it's clear to most people that this is a data collection
initiative. It's marketed more as a let us show you cool things we think
you'll like.

Rewards like this are bullshit also, you usually end up with a coupon that
lets you buy something for slightly more then you could if you waited for a
sale.

------
darrmit
This sort of disgusting privacy intrusion plus the rising costs of smartphones
and their associated data plans have me thinking that eventually we'll just
reach a breaking point where people choose to go back to dumbphones. I'm
already nearly at that point myself.

~~~
Karunamon
Depends on who "we" is. A point that political advocates (privacy, open
source, anything really) tend to forget is that politics isn't even on most
people's radar when making decisions about what widget to use. Doubly so when
that political stance doesn't have any tangible impact on their lives.
("Google tracks you for ads!" "Okay, and?")

The number of people willing to forego a smartphone because of data collection
is statistically insignificant.

Personally, I'm not bothered enough by Google's business plan to go through
contortions, making my life more annoying just to avoid some nebulous,
unrealistic dystopian hypothetical.

------
raldu
This is a form of exploitation.

The company gets excellent "data-driven marketing insights" by providing users
some _carrots_.

The users become co-creators of value for the company; and the carrots already
cost _less_ than value produced by the collected data.

I doubt the users have the right to withdraw their data completely too. The
data of users, which is a result of their _labor_ , stays forever with the
company while the carrots are gone.

What it means that the company "shares" how data is used when nobody reads
that Terms of Service that gets "changed" all the time anyway?

A better treatment would be each individual _user_ having the right to control
over how the data is used and shared with whom, and having the right to remove
data at will. As long as we keep thinking that this is a right of a company,
rather than users, it will take much longer for many implications of giving up
data privacy to be realized.

------
solomatov
I think this is the way to go with data and privacy, and it might be even
better than what GDPR provides. Be open with what you collect, who you share
it with, and for how long you store it instead of syphoning all the data you
can with shady practices (for example, browser extensions capturing your
browsing history). In return provide some real benefits, not just services
which are used for free (and which are really cheap for this kind of
companies, since they spend most on processing data and showing relevant
advertising).

Even better, it creates a competition for your data which will drive down
margins of ad companies and give you rewards. In this sense it's similar to
what we have with airline and credit card rewards.

------
lgats
[https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-
an-a...](https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-an-
advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first-1504603801)

------
andrenotgiant
unpaywalled mirror: [http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/05/verizon-
wants...](http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/05/verizon-wants-to-
build-advertising-juggernaut-it-needs-your-data-first.html)

I'm actually ok with this idea, because it introduces the concept of companies
"paying" for your data. To me, that means a couple things:

1\. People with privacy concerns can use verizon but _not_ participate in
their data collection program.

2\. It opens up the idea of a competitive market for your data. Google and
others have gotten away with "all your data for free access to [product]" for
too long, which is almost like a fixed exchange rate. Clearly, Google makes
enough money in search that they could have started "paying" users to use
their products long ago.

~~~
daenney
Verizon is already being paid to provide you with access. So now on top of
that they also want rather unfethered access to your online activity for which
you might receive a small token in return, which may or may not be a reward
you actually want. Your connection fees plus the amount of money theyll get
for reselling your data isnt remotely evenly matched, theyre not really paying
for anything. This is just another scheme to milk their customers further.

~~~
passivepinetree
I think you mean unfettered, rather than unfethered, which I don't believe is
a word.

I'm sorry to be that person.

~~~
daenney
No worries, I don't actually mind. And you're right!

------
eighthnate
It's amazing how the internet used to be a decentralized tool of anonymity,
freedom and exchange of information to a centralized tool of monitoring,
information siphoning and control.

As a kid growing up with the internet in the 90s, I used to laugh at people
who said the internet could become a tool of control and monitoring. Now it
seems inevitable as the internet becomes more centralized.

~~~
westmeal
It's pretty depressing isn't it?

------
tsumnia
> "Deli Meeks, a 26-year-old forklift operator in Atlanta, said he doesn't
> mind Verizon accessing his data."

I am perfectly fine with this. One of the biggest issues people have had in
recent years is the level of invasive practices companies have been using in
the name of advertising. My current assumption is that yes, while it is a
breach of privacy, the issue is that is was something I produced that I didn't
get to have a say in being sold/used. I've been using Google Rewards for a
while now, even recently broke the $100 mark. When I was a kid, I scoured the
internet for sites that would pay me to take surveys.

Some people obviously don't want their privacy invaded, and for that I
definitely advocate for better privacy policies maintaining that.

However, this 'data' that I am generating, I'm not doing anything with it. And
companies WANT it. I am a producer, producing a good (data) that a consumer
(companies) want. Getting back to my first paragraph, I am more upset I'm not
being compensated for all this arbitrary data I'm generating that companies
are taking from me for free. When companies offer these types of rewards, I'm
fine with it. So what, they know how to tailor goods to me. I have enough
discipline to recognize an ad.

[For anyone pointing to people that cannot tell whats an ad, that's more an
educating people issue and I'll argue another point like privacy policies]

~~~
eighthnate
> "Deli Meeks, a 26-year-old forklift operator in Atlanta, said he doesn't
> mind Verizon accessing his data."

That's his prerogative but I wonder whether he truly understands what he is
giving up?

He is giving up identifiable ISP data which can be sold. That means his future
employers, dating interest and even family members can potentially get access
to his data.

~~~
tsumnia
That begins to pan more into the realm of maintaining a good online presence
and why I advocate for stronger privacy policies. Online presence simply comes
from educating people on what people can see and Privacy policies to dictate
what I am willing to release for compensation. Finally, I'm willing to assume
the data is somewhat sanitize to remove identifiable marks (again, that's a
privacy policy issue).

If we extend the idea of data to include anything - my GPS data from my phone,
heart rate via Fitbit, viewing habits; this is all data that we generate.
Going back to my producer analogy, image if I was using a "Water-As-A-Service"
company (WaaS) to water land I own; mind you, I'm not a farmer, I simply own
this 'thing'. Now assume that WaaS has been taking anything that the grows on
that land (say 'wild strawberries') without paying me and then selling it for
another profit.

In this scenario, I'm upset as an individual because 1) I never gave
permission to WaaS to take that product and 2) they are making money off of my
hard work - they gave my a tool (water), but I did all the legwork to create
the product.

In the same light, change water to cellular connection and strawberries to
activity. Right now, we freely give our product away for free, which turns
back to the story. I am willing to be compensated for my data. I'd prefer a
better compensation model than "3 Months of HBO GO Free", but I look at this
as a positive step in the right direction.

Furthermore, it could be used to incentive under represented statistical
models. How a Caucasian male uses a system / service is probably a saturated
market, but a Native American female model would be willing to pay more
because that data is rarer. This can different for data point to data point,
but now we're talking the economy of individual data and I'm not well versed
enough in how that'd work.

Ultimately, I've accepted that in the current era, my data is out there. All
it takes is one bad data breach and the goes any anonymity I've worked towards
maintaining. Even to take a more cynical approach, I know Big Brother is
watching - its simply too easy to do so. Its not a "nothing to hide, nothing
to fear" argument, I just accept it as a consequence if I want to live in a
digital world. However, I don't blindly accept this as there's nothing I can
do, 1984 Orwellian times, but as a capitalistic viewpoint. I produce
something, now pay me if you want it.

------
cratermoon
Isn't that what all silicon valley crowd-source social sharing platforms do
all the time anyway?

------
amorphid
Based on the title, I thought this was going to be an interesting bug bounty
type program.

------
mixedbit
In my country broadband Internet connection provided by two major ISPs has a
price that increases by about 1.5$/month, if you don't agree for your personal
data to be used for marketing purposes.

~~~
ioulian
What? Care to share the country you are in?

~~~
mixedbit
It is in Poland, the companies are UPC and Orange. If you know Polish, here is
the example UPC Internet offer for 49PLN/month that increases to 54PLN/month
if you don't agree to marketing (it's called Marketing Communication
Discount/Ulga za Komunikację Marketingową):

[https://www.upc.pl/internet/internet-tak-
bardzo-24-miesiace/...](https://www.upc.pl/internet/internet-tak-
bardzo-24-miesiace/fiber-power-60-online/)

(Orange shows this opt-out discount during checkout so it is hard to link).

------
chinathrow
UPC, the branch of Liberty Global in Europe is doing exactly the same these
days.

I wonder if the same folks are consulting all over the world with the same
privacy invading options.

------
crmd
If you enjoyed your telecom's support experience in the old days as the
customer, you're going to love it even more being the product.

------
whyagaindavid
Happened already in Germany. Www.netzclub.net free internet provided you get
some ads,allow personal data for analytics.

------
wnevets
At least it's optional

------
westmeal
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF0cGt5-69k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF0cGt5-69k)

------
artur_makly
and what do i get if i allow Verizon to install a camera in my apt?! woot!
RealityRoulette anyone?!

------
ArtCreator
This is particularly messed up because you know poorer people will take this
option so they can afford their next phone or device. It preys on lower-income
individuals unaware of what is going on. People who generally aren't aware of
what rights are being tossed out, or may not even have the luxury to put
personal rights above cost.

~~~
ma2rten
Poorer people's browsing histories are also less valuable to Verizon.

~~~
horusthecat
To Verizon, yes, but who said there isn't a secondary market for that
information? I'm reminded of how Facebook is a net buyer of information _from_
Oracle: there's a thriving resale market.

------
Risible_Me
On one hand, they easily could have just left this in their ToS and the
average person wouldn't have been any wiser about it. It's kind of a good
thing they're at least offering something for our personal information. So
many companies just take it as a bonus on top now, and don't catch enough flak
for it.

------
RealSpartacus
At least with Verizon you get something out of it. AT&T just charges you extra
if you want privacy.

~~~
ryan-c
AFAIK, AT&T stopped doing that. They claim not to be doing the snooping on
anyone now, but it's AT&T...

~~~
pmiller2
Ah, yes, AT&T, of Room 641a fame[0].

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

