Site Sponsor:

mcafee_logo.gif
line

Now Available:

Featured Resource:

line

Newsletter

Email Address:


line

Ask the Expert

Have a question for our resident expert? Email your questions to Dan or post a comment to the blog.

« More Security and Compliance Tools for Google Apps | Main | Insider Abuse at Dept. of Homeland Security »

Verizon, Censorship, and why we Need Open Access

The editorial in the New York Times today hits on a topic that should piss off everyone: Verizon declaring themselves censors of the public discourse. What were they thinking? Is Verizon the keeper of morality and public discourse? Haven't these guys figured out the difference between being a content carrier and a content provider.

Here's the summary from the NYT editorial:


Late last month, Verizon Wireless denied an application from Naral Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group, for a “short code,” a few numbers that a mobile phone user can use to subscribe to a particular source of text messages. Verizon said its policy was to refuse “issue oriented” text-messaging programs from any group that “seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.” The policy also said political candidates may be granted short codes if the content is, “in VZW’s sole discretion, not issue-oriented or controversial in nature.”

The editorial points out:

Verizon did the right thing after the problem was disclosed: it promptly dropped a misbegotten policy and said its new policy is to open its network to any legal communication. But alarm bells should be ringing on Capitol Hill ...

Alarm bells for sure,

Verizon admitted its mistake and pledged not to repeat it, but that’s not enough. As admirable as Verizon’s retreat was, the company reserved the right to change the rules at any time. Verizon still says “some well-intentioned employee” got too zealous. If its top executives were not engaged on this issue, they should have been.

Verizon needs to understand that no corporation can declare itself mediator of a public debate. What's the deal Verizon, don't want to be in the middle of a public relations squabble with a group opposed to someone you sell a short code to? Forget it, about the only thing that will unify opposing public policy groups is the thought of some outsider stepping in and arbitrarily squashing their right to get on the proverbial soap box.

I probably wouldn't be quite so pissed if Verizon hadn't made bucket loads of money because of my four teenagers ... no on second thought, I would be just as mad.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realtime-websecurity.com/type/mt-tb.cgi/460

Post a comment

(All comments are approved by site leader before appearing here. Thanks for commenting!)

line

Dan Sullivan's Bio:

Dan Sullivan is a systems architect with 20 years of IT experience that includes engagements in enterprise security, application design, and systems architecture. His experience includes a broad range of industries, including financial services, manufacturing, government, retail, gas and oil production, power generation, and education. Dan’s security-related project work has ranged from requirements analysis for enterprise information security to designing and implementing security for database applications and enterprise portals. Dan has written about information security and other enterprise information management topics for Business Security Advisor, DM Review, Intelligent Enterprise, and E-Business Advisor. You can contact Dan at: dan_sullivan@realtimepublishers.net