Bullshit, Verizon isn’t a victim at all - they fucked up, they should own up to their mistake instead of trying to go “me too!” to a situation where a stalker harassed their customer and their family after giving said stalker the customer’s personal information.
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
182 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
789 readers
32 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
“We are taking every step possible to work with the police so they can identify them.”
Yeah just make sure it's the actual police.
...a Verizon representative told Poppy that the corporation was a victim too.
Fuck off. You're all a bunch of idiots who didn't do an extremely quick search online to find an officer of that name in that area. Or at the very least call the police in that area to confirm said person isn't a fraudster! Large corporations need to stop gaslighting us into thinking that when they fuck up that they're victims!
To be fair if Poppy got killed they would have lost a customer and the income from that customer. How would they recover from that?
Maybe they could stop eating avocado toast everyday and cut back on their starbucks orders?
Seriously? What a stupid mistake to make. There should always be internal processes right?
And now they will probably overcompensate with frustrating security theatre beyond sensible precautions.
I see no problem whatsoever with having frustrating levels of obtuse security required before complying with a request from law enforcement.
There is no downside.
Maybe I am missing a joke, but why would a service provider need to jump through any security hoops to comply with a request from law enforcement?
You mean like... verifying it is a legitimate request from law enforcement? That kind of security hoop? Ensuring there is a warrant or subpoena? Ensuring proper security in transmitting the sensitive personal information?
Civil rights matter more than making cops' jobs easy.
At a customer service job I had, everything was via email. Once, an alleged cop just wrote us that he "had a subpoena" and to please "send all the information we had on Mr. X".
The funniest part is as "proof" they attached the tiniest and blurriest .jpeg of a police badge saying that was their ID. That was more pixel art than anything.
We tagged it as Urgent, but it stayed unanswered (until I quit, at least). I wonder if this was what worked with Verizon, imma start downloading badger pictures!
OK but that would be entirely different security questions from the ones they ask clients.
I was talking about how frustrating it gets for clients, eg for social security I am a nominee for my Mother. I have to verify details of myself (since I am also on SS) then give them a password for my access to Mum, then (this is the stupid part) give them the details of Mum.
It is entirely redundant by the last stage and it may just be theatre or they may be doing it to piss people off so that they get angry and so the SS agent has an excuse to hang up. In Australia they are notorious for making things difficult and the subject of a Royal Commission which determined they are guilty of illegal shitfuckery (although I don't think the RC used that term).
Well the difference is, in this case it would be an increase in requirements in the situation that law enforcement requests information. I don't see how that, if implemented correctly, should affect the average person. Huge emphasis on that 'if.'
Oh dear, I forgot the point of the article, sorry. The guy was pretending to be a police officer. Thank you everyone for being tolerant of me. I don't know if I should delete my comment now or not.
We're mostly reasonable here, no problem. If anything, I agree with your sentiment that the red tape in front of many government services is weaponized to reject people service. It's definitely a problem and realistically, I could see a world where such failures of the system occur in most scenarios.
Just today: they asked for [verification of] ID number, name, DOB, address.
But for the address they asked further...
AGENT: "...and the postcode please?"
ME: "Google it"
The agent must have seen the absurdity of the question and did not insist on a postcode.
You would think a government system would be able to pull postcodes from addresses automatically, but...
She knew the postcode. It was a security question. My response was cheeky.
I don't know how other people see it but the way I see it is if a company makes as much money as Verizon does then there is no excuse for this to happen. They have more than enough money to prevent this from happening tenfold but instead of investing money into the company CEOs get paid. With that being said, I believe that if there are any issues in a company, the CEO should be a 100% responsible. If they are going to get paid more money than anyone else than they should be doing more work than anyone else and if bad things are happening below them. That means they're not doing their due diligence.
Verizon was also threatened with a knife.
The stalker probably assaulted them with a thumbs down on Twitter.
She could tell it was Verizon's fault because the stalker kept calling her, asking, 'Can you hear me now?"