Verizon Up offers rewards in exchange for customers’ personal information | Hacker News Reader

Verizon Up offers rewards in exchange for customers’ personal information

wsj.com

181 pointsforgingahead103 comments

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.

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".

>"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.

Yet none of this is nearly as details as your web browsing history.

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.

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...

This goes nowhere. If you're using someone else's money to buy stuff, or a card that is a pointer through someone else's processing network, that someone will necessarily be able to see where it's being used.

You might as well ask for web servers to not see the IP address of people connecting to it.

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

Assign a GUID to card numbers. Use that GUID for tracking purpose.

Apple Pay does not generate a unique card number for every purchase. One number is generated when the card is added to Wallet. This seems to be a common misconception.

They may have been thinking about the transaction code. Every purchase generates a unique one-time transaction code for that vendor for a specific amount. That along with the Device Account Number is transmitted to the payment processor for the purchase.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...

"As [Target's] computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a “pregnancy prediction” score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy"

Read the entire article for a more horrifying anecdote.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/data-its-how-stor...

Target may have been too successful in this goal; as Duhigg writes, one teenage customer in Minneapolis was "outed" as being pregnant by a coupon mailer sent to her house. Her father was justifiably upset to see Target offering his underage daughter discounts on diapers and cribs, though he was perhaps more upset when he discovered Target knew more about his daughter's personal life than he did.

I remember that story well. I still assert that someone could find out EVEN MORE with my web history and location data.

Take a look at the AT&T terms and conditions for the Plenti rewards program. [1]

[1] https://www.att.com/legal/terms.Plenti.html

Reward card providers put cookie-matching code on their sites. If you log into to "check your points" or whatever, they send your reward ID to DMPs which you may already have cookies for, and those cookies in turn tie back to your web browsing history.

Credit card companies also do this, though I believe in the EU and even US there are stronger regulations around what exactly they can send (vs. rewards cards).

Your argument is what exactly?

The fact that something that leads to gathering of personal information has been done in the past automatically means it's okay to do it in the future?

If that is your argument then you are the one who needs informing.

Why is it a problem now when it wasn't before?

How do you know it wasn't a problem before? Historically, us the common folk can rarely if ever do anything about such things.

Still doesn't make it okay. It was never okay.

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.

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

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.

We would end up with a small section of middle class consumers who are aware of the privacy issues and its effects and willing to choose businesses based on merit as well as price.

I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).

> 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-...

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.

I like how anyone who actually reads the content of the article and checks the references can a) know how wrong it is to represent this case as a meaningful bit of law and b) find that it directly contradicts the assertions that it is a driving force.

"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744

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

Well, I wasn't speaking to codified law, as referenced in your linked article. However, perhaps I over-simplified a bit in the interest of brevity when I wrote "singular mission".

Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction.

Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.

The level of mental gymnastics required to argue that a lack of regulation would improve customer privacy is ... olympian.

Where are you getting that the GP post is advocating a lack of regulation? I read it as the market should stop punishing transient fluctuations in earnings and share prices and expecting continuous growth, while, in turn, we could have companies that actually respect privacy. I'm not sure it's a great argument, but it's a nice sentiment, at least.

What about the level of mental gymnastics required to go from what I actually wrote to something about lack of regulations? Because that certainly is not what I wrote nor is it what I meant.

Who is "we"? I'm not a Google shareholder.

Exactly. People completely disconnect their own incentives as a shareholder ("hope price goes up") with those as a user(privacy/ethics in this case).

When you only want the price of FB/GOOG to rise as a shareholder and are happy when it does (regardless of what it took to achieve it), don't be surprised when the board that represents the shareholders does whatever it takes to make it happen.

As a shareholder, you can be completely ignorant (or knowing but indifferent) of what it takes to deliver returns to your investment yet support those measures by buying shares. As a board member, the only incentive then is to raise share price because you know shareholders don't know/care about what it takes.

When the system delivers rewards to both shareholders and people running the company for extracting more profit, and requires little scrutiny of the means in which that is done, the logical optimization target function is just that - profit. The system converges to optimizing the target function.

If you are not a shareholder but merely a user, this does not apply to you. But then, your only input into the system it whether you choose to remain a user. As long as enough people remain such that the business can continue to function an generate profits, there is again no incentive for a business to change its behavior.

This sounds logical, but the issue is that the price of an asset should fall if its performance decreases. I don't know whether there is a real solution when the (bulk of) ownership of a company is disjoint from those participating in its operations. However, I can comfortably say that organized behavior against rational self-interest is probably not a solution.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of employee-owned companies. But to be 100% employee owned, that means no fundraising based on selling ownership. So growth is probably going to be limited by capital. (Which, also personally, I don't think is a terrible thing either.)

This is already happening with the free services we are getting from Google and Facebook.

And then they also do explicitly with: Google Opinion Rewards (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...). The app does ask questions based on location, search terms, YT videos and others, that DO get pretty personal.

It's how all rights work. Freedom of speech? You can yell all you want, but it will never be equal to a rich individual able to buy adds and have recorded messages played over the internet. 2nc Amendment? You ever see the prices to own certain guns? Voting? While there isn't a direct poll tax, you have to be able to afford the opportunity costs of the time spent to vote, as well as being able to afford access to the place to vote.

There's a difference between Rights and Entitlements. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anything, it restricts what the government can take away (in theory).

I think some of that is related to wage inequalities and decades of business friendly legislation.

And how do even "higher classes" achieve privacy while taking advantage of what modern technology has to offer? I can't even imagine the level of op sec one would need to be truly anonymous on the internet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gmail. Google Maps. Google Search. Youtube.

I could go on. Those services do not exist for free!

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.

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

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.

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/).

"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. "

Certainly you realize there is a give and take here. The EU needs the businesses too. The EU is not powerful enough on it's own to just do whatever it wants. So they aren't going to go after these kinds of weird cases at first, because it would generate a large business backlash.

You just have to be within the EU/EEA to be covered by the GDPR. How this will be enforced in the future is hard to tell, but you should still be covered by it.

From SEC Filings: "Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon, or the Company) is a holding company that, acting through its subsidiaries, is one of the world’s leading providers of communications, information and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses and governmental agencies with a presence in over 150 countries around the world. "

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.

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

Worth noting is that Verizon almost certainly is paying a net amount for those deals than they would actually cost (if anything). They may have revshare arrangements for new customers and wholesale rates for things. I'm curious what the actual cost per user is forecasted to be.

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.

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.

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.

yep.

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.

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.

https://www.fullwsj.com/articles/verizon-wants-to-build-an-a...

unpaywalled mirror: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/05/verizon-wants...

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.

I think that there will be ethical issues as long as "your" data is owned by the company collecting it, not you and can be used in any way without your consent. I believe that until this relationship is reversed, voluntarily giving your data can never be beneficial. If your data can be collected and traded freely there is a high probability of it reaching well-paying but malicious parties at some point, if even just in a decade when the company goes bankrupt.

I'm curious how things like GDPR that attempt to fix this will change the landscape in terms of this.

Unpaywalled redirect to the original article as well:

https://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/ve...

A nice bookmarklet based on that:

   javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);

I am relatively okay with it insofar as that it is an opt-in program instead of an opt-out program. There is a clear requirement that you agree to give them access to the data, and in fact, from your Verizon account you can flip a switch on each line that prevents you (or any user on your account) from accidentally agreeing to Verizon Selects, that you'll need to go in and uncheck before anyone on your account can sign up.

However, I am doubtful this is an act of goodwill on Verizon's part, as opposed to being due to the much stricter privacy requirements ISPs and telcos are held to compared to your average tech company. If Verizon could just silently collect your data and sell it, I'm reasonably confident they would.

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.

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

I'm sorry to be that person.

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

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.

It's pretty depressing isn't it?

> "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]

> "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.

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.

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

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

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.

What? Care to share the country you are in?

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/...

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

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.

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.

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

At least it's optional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF0cGt5-69k

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

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.

Isn't this the fundamental working of social media and advertising? Most people are not aware of, or can't afford to think about, the rights they're tossing out. So they're sold to bidders, creating billion dollar enterprises.

I think one of the most insidious concepts in the modern world is "free", when multiplied by the internet.

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

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.

Not necessarily. There have been numerous studies in the banking industry, for example, that show "poor people" bank accounts are more valuable than high-wealth bank accounts due to the overdraft fees, low-to-zero interest they can get away with, etc.

A lot of the biggest, easiest wealth made in America is derived from screwing over poor people at scale / en masse. I highly recommend Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich for some pretty good examples of this.

This is my fear for the future that all companies will adopt a similar system. Products will only be available to the rich, unless you submit to identification practices.

What makes you think that poor people are unaware of what's going on? Like they must be simpletons that can't comprehend the concept of privacy? In my experience, they know how messed up the world is. They don't have a choice, but they know... and they are constantly coming up with low-tech ways to screw the man.

The parent comment didn't claim that poor people aren't aware of what's going on. Merely that if you are poor, and you aren't aware of the privacy implications, then you are more likely to opt-in to this.

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.

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com