Verizon Wireless Sues Again To Whitewash Customer Data Theft

from the lawsuits-for-pr dept

Wed, Nov 9th 2005 7:23am — Carlo Longino

Back in September, Verizon Wireless got an injunction against a company for selling customer information Verizon shouldn't have let out. We wondered then why Verizon was pumping up the injunction rather than tightening up their security policies, and pointed out its proclivity for touting its "protection" of customers with reactive lawsuits rather than proactively improving security. Now, they've done it again, suing a Florida company to stop it from "fraudulently obtaining" customer information and getting a court order to seize back any information the company already had. The position remains the same: while it's nice that Verizon Wireless is attempting to protect the information, how did it get out in the first place? A company exec says it "will use all the weapons in our legal arsenal to protect our customers' private and confidential information" -- again, why rely solely on reactive measures? If the information never got out in the first place, relief through the courts wouldn't be necessary. But, of course, that doesn't make for an exciting press release so the company can say its "aggressive and innovative record of protecting customer privacy is unmatched in the U.S. wireless industry." Suing people to look aggressive after they've stolen data from you isn't innovative. Innovation would be making sure the thefts never happened in the first place.

7 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rikko, 9 Nov 2005 @ 8:26am

Lack of technical mindset I suppose
I guess the folks at the top still don't quite understand the computer thing as well as they should.

Then again, if somebody breaks into your vault and steals the gold, you probably move it or buy a better vault if somebody else is stealing your gold every week, regardless of whether or not the crime is illegal and "not your fault".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris H, 9 Nov 2005 @ 8:32am

No Subject Given
Well, at least it was the wireless division and not the Internet one. Too bad for my ex-g/f though heh heh :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thecpuguru, 9 Nov 2005 @ 8:38am

Good point
Ya hit the nail on the head Carlo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one guy, 9 Nov 2005 @ 8:56am

Well, it's a start
Just two days ago you (rightly) made fun of South African banks don't feel liable for their own lack of security features. These guys aren't saying they are ignoring the security issues in their own systems: they are just saying that they are actively prosecuting those that managed (easily or with difficulty, who cares?) to steal the data and use if for their illegal purposes. They are implicitly saying that they feel liable in front of their customers for the loss of data, and are taking their liability to the people that made them look bad. It would be much worse if they said "The loss of data is not our fault, just complain with those that are using it for their purposes". I wish more people acted like that in these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
goldfndr, 9 Nov 2005 @ 5:25pm

Unmatched?
its "aggressive and innovative record of protecting customer privacy is unmatched in the U.S. wireless industry."
They don't say whether it's good or bad, merely that it's unmatched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You retard, 9 Dec 2005 @ 7:39pm

No Subject Given
Why would you ever formulate ANY sort of defense for hackers and security crackers? Verizon shouldn't have to "tighten up their security", nerds should get a life and quit attacking networks. Also, what do you know about Verizon's security? I don't know anything about it, and I'm willing to bet you don't either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ledtvreviews, 18 Nov 2012 @ 10:07pm

LED TV
If you look through the history of recorded music, sales have always increased when new technology allows more people to listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]