Verizon to cops: we won't help you track down sick, possibly dying man unless you pay his $20 phone bill
A 62-year-old man had a mental breakdown and ran off after grabbing several bottles of pills from his house. The cops asked Verizon to help trace the man using his cellphone, but Verizon refused, saying that they couldn't turn on his phone because he had an unpaid $20 bill. After an 11-hour search (during which time the sheriff's department was trying to figure out how to pay the bill), the man was found, unconscious.
Two K-9 units, several fire departments and 100 individuals on foot also were involved in the search for the man, who Sheriff Dale Williams said fled his residence on Kensington Rd. after a domestic disturbance call to deputies...Unconscious Carroll man found after 11-hour search (via Consumerist)Williams said he attempted to use the man's cell phone signal to locate him, but the man was behind on his phone bill and the Verizon operator refused to connect the signal unless the sheriff's department agreed to pay the overdue bill. After some disagreement, Williams agreed to pay $20 on the phone bill in order to find the man. But deputies discovered the man just as Williams was preparing to make arrangements for the payment.
the latest
latest episodes
Lesson: Some cops are good. All corporations are bad.
If I had $20, I would pay the guy's phone bill for him so he could be found. What needs to happen in this country (U.S.) is we need the commoditization of the phone and cellphone. That way everybody could have it and backup at the same time. Where is this guy anyway?
Finally a story that makes cops look good!
If only the man had a ticking bomb. Then the cops would have been justified in using torture on the Verizon reps to find out the information they needed.
Very Verizon, the money Vampires.
So no outrage that Verizon was willing to help the cops under any circumstances?
Capitalism! It never fails :D Kudos to Verizon for not falling into place and becoming a socialist freeloading paradise! U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A--U-S-A
;)
Don't Verizon's actions constitute depraved indifference?
Mackenzi, the problem isn't the amount of money, the problem is that the Verizon operator insisted on having the bill paid, violating both common sense - IMO, that sounded like some HEAVY prioritizing issues - and "business sense" - their lack of help could have made them lose a customer, in more ways than one.
I mean it took approximately 300+ persons of community stabilizers and _2_ specially trained German shepards to finally get to this gentleman individual. If the emergency personel had been thinking with something other than their bank accounts (personal ATM machine, broke), someone such as one officer could have paid the bill and telephoned the guy. Then the guy could have phoned a friend for a pickup. A helicopter scout would have been cheaper. What was this guy charged with anyway?
Charges should be brought against the head of Verizon, or the rep they dealt with. Hindering a case or something to that effect.
I'm glad they found the guy and everything, but um... shouldn't they need a warrant?
isn't that obstruction of justice ?
A Warrant? in a missing persons case?
@#7
RTFA.
Something doesn't add up here. How does it take 11 hours to come up with $20?
IANL, but I believe that the police don't need a warrant to break your door down if they believe that your life is in jeopardy.
I expect that they wouldn't (shouldn't!) need a warrant in this case either.
Someone's head will roll for this at Verizon. Probably the rep who enforced the stupid rule ("NEVER turn on a phone with the bill still unpaid! NEVER. If you do that you're fired!") made by some boss who will not even be spoken to harshly.
This is pure conjecture. Don't ask for evidence; I have none. This is just how it goes in service organizations.
well i can understand verizon. unless the cop could somehow prove that he is indeed a cop to the verizon phone guy he must of thought someone is messing with him, otherwise do u know how many prank calls would be sent to trick the phone companys outta money. i say the cop shoulda gone down in person to one of their stores. showing up wearing a cop uniform would do the trick. anyway thats how i see it.
Good thing it wasn't AT&T. They won't let ANYONE pay your bill for you. Otherwise they might not get to charge you a late fee.
The good news is, that if you ever commit a crime and don't want to be found, simply time the crime to coincide with your overdue fees.
Ironic: Here we have an actual ticking time-bomb scenario (person at imminent risk of loss of life) and Verizon refuses to help. Yet they fall all over themselves helping the NSA with its fictional ticking time-bomb scenarios (I know, I know, "allegedly").
oh and all u guys talking about the warrent issue. the man was not in his house. he fled the residence which is why #1 they were looking for him and #2 trying to get the cell activated. if he was in his home none of this woulda happened lol
Not surprised by Verizon's response.
Nope, not at all. Cuz what really matters here is that Verizon didn't get their moneys. And that's what's important, right? I mean, c'mon.
This sort of devotion to the bottom line is what makes Verizon the very bestest corporate citizens that they are. Wohoo! Verizon is awwwesome! And never, ever wrong! No. How dare you say they were wrong?!
This was Verizon-tastic!
capitalism.txt
Hmmm... I don't know that I'm buyin' this tempestuous teapot outcry. I take a pretty dim view of police asking for information about phones in general and I think that a healthy suspicion of a cop asking to track a cell phone is a pretty damn wise approach in general. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like all the tracking and snooping and without-warrant searching, then you can't get your panties in a wad over a phone operator who's not playing ball with the police.
If I run out of my house with a bottle of pills and turn my damn phone off I sure don't want some cop turning it back on by remote control. No sir. Leave it off and leave me alone. Find me with a bloodhound instead.
#17: actually, there were reports that the phone companies regularly refused to cooperate with wiretapping, legal or illegal, whenever the feds fell behind on payments. For them, money comes before any other consideration.
Verizon could have verified that this was indeed an officer by calling the police precinct themselves. Also, since they are a phone company, they might be able to tell from caller id or even that old-fashioned call tracing thing that they were speaking to the police.
I thought all cell phones were now required to have GPS tracking in case of emergencies, but I guess if you can't pay your phone bill you definitely can't pay for emergency medical care so this is just like a pre-screening system for hospitals that will save the health care industry tons of money.
@ #7
Except that this had nothing to do with Verzion protecting the guys rights or sticking it to the man. They just wanted their 20 bucks.
cells do all have GPS tracking. but its gotta be on in order to use it. it only works if it has some power
actually... I wish AT&T had had this mentality before they let the NSA just tap into all their IP traffic.
Privacy via greed is better than none at all.
also about the GPS u can remotely turn the phone on as long as it has the battery in it. so if ur ever wanted by the cops and trying to make it to mexico yet u want to bring ur phone just remember make short calls and ALWAYS take the battery out when not using it. thats the only for sure way to make sure no one will find u by using ur phone. lol
This reminds me of the recurring stories of toll booth operators refusing to let ambulances through if they don't have toll money.
http://news.scotsman.com/forthbridges/Outrage-as-paramedics-held-up.2665565.jp
@#20 Thank you! I heartily agree. It's a slippery slope of letting police use any excuse to track citizens, I am actually surprised that boingers are pro-cop here... Privacy first. I don't know the whole story, but if my neighbor hates me and alleges some suspicious behavior, should the cops have the right to use my cell phone to track me down for questioning? The phone is for me, not the cops.
@26 i am totally not pro-cop. they suck big time. but in the first like of the story it says "A 62-year-old man had a mental breakdown" so a mental breakdown and taking tons of pills and running away. the cops better find him before he kills himself. its not like they want to arrest him for anything. they are trying the help out the poor old man.
Verizon did the same kind of thing in Kansas City in 2007. Kelsey Smith was abducted and the FBI asked Verizon to use their cell towers and records to triangulate her position. They refused for 3 days. Meanwhile, she was raped, murdered and left in a field only to be found days later.
Citation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kelsey_Smith
Glad we don't use Verizon.
@#20
Verizon was more than happy to turn on the cell phone--they just wanted 20 bucks to do it. Your characterization of the phone operator as some sort of civil liberties firewall is laughable.
#20, the broad-stroke approach a corporation takes and that ones like Verizon drill into reps and operators is obviously not suited to emergency situations, nor are such situations provided for in rhetoric about the right-to-privacy of a disturbed man running about in public with bottles of pills.
Furthermore, the article (have you read it?) doesn't state that the cops' first instinct was to demand that Verizon gimme-gimme control over this person's cell. They were "searching in an area just north of Augusta, including Manfull Orchards, where there is a Verizon cell phone tower" and, in fact, before they did anything else, organized "the search party for the man after deputies responded to the domestic call Wednesday at 2:21 p.m. at the Kensington Rd. residence."
Who knows the exact progression of events, the number of minutes it took for them to realize that they could zero in on the man's location with ease since they were in the cellular radio wave shadow of a cell tower, but, if one grants that it is indeed possible that cops were trying to fuck with the poor bastard and clandestinely take his rightz away, is it also possible that they were just trying to use all available resources to find this man before he hurt himself or someone else and found themselves at the mercy of a quibbledick operator over $20?
"Personally, I would like to help you. But my wife, she has been quite insistent in the matter of the cell phone money. 'Where is the cell phone money?'; 'Do you have the cell phone money?'; 'Why are you not getting the cell phone money now?' and so on."
Here is part of it. Regardless of the unpaid bill, there are laws in several states requiring warrants and such for obtaining and accessing telecommunication records. These records are protected mainly at the Federal level and fines for violating them are huge. Keep in mind that representatives are trained not to give certain information regardless. I had a man identifying himself as a police officer and he tried to get cellular records of a woman. The woman was his ex girlfriend who was hiding from him. He used every story in the book to get her records. The law is clear. When he became beligerent (this was in a T-Mobile store and I had access to ALL data pertaining to accounts) I called the police to verify why he was there. Police arrived and arrested him on the spot.
He was not an officer. He is now doing time for committing multiple felonies, some involving that incident.
My point being over the phone you can't verify who or what someone is every time. The Verizon case may be an extreme example of what can happen thats bad but it is due to the checks, balance, and safeguards that companies and lawemakers put into place to prevent those from getting access to that information.
Sweet John
@#28 These stories are different. The surveillance video showed that the young woman was ABDUCTED. Sad story, but I am for cops triangulating me if I am abducted/attacked, I am not for it in other circumstances. After reading the story, they had every right to seek a warrant and get this information, but in the time frame, logistically, the bill of rights slows them down a bit. I'm glad for that and I also think that #30 is totally right, Verizon isn't about freedom, they wanted the $20. They would totally sell the guy out for the bucks.
So according to Verizon a human life is worth =/
@29
Your house is on fire, it'll cost the fire department $50 in gas to get there and $1,000 in water. Do you wish to pay cash or credit?
@ #12 one hellacious shift at an all-night taco bell.
Must have hit "submit" to soon. I guess $20 is more than what Verizon thinks one life is worth. Awesome.
And by "Awesome" I mean what a bunch of a-holes.
So, did the police have a warrant to track this fellow's phone, or was the telco expected to just believe their story and do as the police asked?
Many people here would go ape if the police simply went to the telco, said "we need to find this guy for (fill in the reason), but we don't have a warrant" and the telco just gave them a street address...
How can the telco tell a BS story from a real story, and do the telco's have immunity from prosecution if they acquiesce to the police demands for warrantless information requests?
Money is the root of all evil.
Actually, the bill is 20¢.
If his service was shut off, why would he still be carrying around the cell phone? I sure wouldn't carry a device that was of no use.
#42
that's the biggest misquote of scripture. "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil" money itself is not evil.
@38 what does that have to do with anytime. do u mean something like it was an emergency to find the man but verizon wouldnt listen to the cops and u dont like that i agreed with verizon? i only did so because verizon had NO WAY to tell if the cop was actually someone else just trying to scam for some free phone time or not. im sure placed like this get pranked all the time. the verizon guy had no way of telling the difference and when ur job is to make sure u dont do anything stupid like listen to prank calls and get the company scammed id say i needed proof hes a cop. verizon should call the police station or the cop should go to a verizon store and say its an emergency. anyone can call and say "help i need to use the gps on my phone, i know i havent paid my bill this month but its ok cuz its an emergency" but after the cop shows proof he is a cop then verizon should comply or face penelty by law for obstructing justice. so anyway i agree verizon should listen to the cop and the cop should show proof he is a cop before verizon does anything so they know they arent getting scammed
@48
If his service was shut off, why would he still be carrying around the cell phone?
Yeah, it sounds crazy, like the sort of thing somebody on medication and/or having a mental breakdown...
@29 Your house is on fire, it'll cost the fire department $50 in gas to get there and $1,000 in water. Do you wish to pay cash or credit?
That's exactly how the Emergency Room works.
To all the people who are saying that verison is right, because they couldnt verify that the caller was from the police....
So then all it takes to "verify" is a payment of $20 dollars? Because thats all they wanted before they helped.
I think you have to rise above the details of this specific story to see why some of us are defending Verion's actions. Imagine this: the police contact the telco and say they need GPS info, last number called info, whatever on a particular number. Telco asks for warrants and the police say it is a matter of "national security", and the telco gives them the info.
Many here called it "Warrantless Wire Tapping" and rightly railed against it.
Now the telco stands firm, and many here are railing against it - I think wrongly.
Personally, I'm commenting on the lack of consistency among some here... I think the $20 debt is just noise, I'm looking at the deeper issue.
@TimothyHutton
"I think the $20 debt is just noise, I'm looking at the deeper issue."
That puts you at odds with the facts outlined in the story, namely "the Verizon operator refused to connect the signal unless the sheriff's department agreed to pay the overdue bill." Not "the Verizon operator refused to connect the signal unless the sheriff's department provided a warrant."
If you have direct personal knowledge of this story which contradicts this, I'm sure everyone would be happy to hear it. But until then you're just a schmuck with an overinflated estimated worth of his own opinion, like me.
yes verizon looks pretty bad here, and this makes me want to change to comcast - problem is they are probably no better - but, if you were the person talking to verizon, and had any brain and/or heart, wouldn't you just pay the stinking $20 out of your own pocket and worry about getting reimbursed later?
I can't believe that asshole didn't pay his $20 bill, I'm glad the police found him so Verizon can finally get paid.
I work with the corporate communications group at Verizon Wireless; in response to the Times-Reporter story, Verizon Wireless has provided the following statement:
“Verizon Wireless apologizes for our mistake. This particular issue has now been resolved. We will work to ensure our exemplary service to our nation’s first responders is on track, and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs.”
@58
Wow. Heartwarming apology.
Sounds like just the operator was a tool. Having worked for phone companies, it would have taken about 2 keystrokes to get the phone back on.
@ 57
I
Anonymous 61: Could you explain further? I find your comment somewhat cryptic.
It amazes me that any of us are surprised at Verizon's reaction to turn on a delinquent customers phone. The world does not stop applying the rules of good business practices because one person is having an emergency. Corporate America does not exist to make our lives easier. Corporations have one goal and one goal only; make money. We shouldn't expect anything different from the capitalist system we have all allowed to form in this country. Sorry Charlie...Verizon doesn't care...about anything other than making money. Why should they? We give them no incentive too.
Way to fight the power Verizon! I am fully supportive of your subversive techniques towards law enforcement.