Since this is something that comes up here quite often and because I am directly involved in the access of account information of cellular phone users, I thought it might have a bearing on some things for the group here.


New requirements concerning access to cell phone account information including call records are about to take place that could limit non-account holder access to anything on the account. Authorized retailers and dealers for carriers will be required to only access the account for an individual that is physically in the store at the time. A valid current photo ID will be required. Phone-in access through the dealer networks will be curtailed.

In addition, only the account holder of record and authorized users of the account, as specified by the account holder will have access and authorized users will not have full access to all aspects of the account including rate changes, feature changes and contract approval.

What this means is that unauthorized access to the account for the purpose of checking call records among other things will be a violation of the carriers' policies AND a criminal offense. This will mean that the "good enough" verification process will no longer be good enough and unless your name is specifically added to the account by your spouse (assuming the account is in his/her name) you will NOT have access to call records and neither will a PI by legal methods currently available without court ordered access.

It also will mean that company cell phone accounts will have access limited to only those users specifically listed by the company and even that access will be less than full access to all aspects of the account.

Dealers will be reluctant to help out because it can cost them their dealer agreement to do so.

So get those call records now if you need them, because the rules are about to change. AT&T is beginning to change access rules as of November 4th with full change to be in place by January 1st.

Mark

This sucks

FTS

as much as it is a tool for BS, it is the right thing to do. privacy concerns trump other interests IMO. I think the FCC is doing the right thing.

I thought this was the case all along. Stands to reason if you and your spouse's names aren't on the account, you shouldn't be able to get information on it.

FTS and MEDC,

I agree with both of you in a way. It is a bummer that the rules are being tightened and making it harder for a BS to find information that the WS is withholding from them during an affair, but I also agree that it is the RIGHT thing to do since currently anyone with the right answers can extend contracts and change phone service at will.

This has been discussed for years and is really nothing new. What is new is that the FCC is now making what was once a voluntary compliance issue mandatory with penalties for failing to make the grade.

Mark

Longhorn,

This was supposed to be the normal way of doing things officially, but the verification process wasn't as clearly spelled out and as long as you could verify SSN, address and other information, you were allowed access through most networks. What is going to change that is significant is that fines can be imposed for failure to deny access to the account to anyone not specifically granted access by the account holder. My guess is that they will attempt to gain access as a way of testing compliance and make an example of the first one they catch failing to ask for photo ID etc.

Mark

I like this because now my XW will be able to get into my account to find out who my DS 17 has been calling. Witch she has done.

Audioflyer

Awww, Mark...

Lemme ask this...says my DH has a cell phone with only him on the account.

If we were to divorce and the contract didn't expire for another two years (let's say)...that debt would be a marital debt in most states.

If he didn't pay for it...they would come after me.

Marital debt reigns. Doesn't matter who charged what or when or what for...courts hate going through all those when the marital debt incurred suddenly becomes I...Oh, I didn't agree with that then, or when...

Marital debt means Spouses are equally responsible...so...they should have equal access, IMO.

Now, is it the right thing to do? Really? That's communal money, while married, that pays for the cell phone...like the phone, utilities, etc. It IS a utility.

And contractually, they will come after the spouse for payment...affect both credit records as well...for any non-payment, collection activities or court.

Hmmm.

Let's fight this somehow...what do you say? The biggest conflicts in life (business, social, marital, etc.) is when you are responsible for what you cannot control.

This would be one of them. Whaddaya say?

LA

LA,

I don't think this is anything that can be fought to prevent at this point, though if enough uproar is forthcoming, perhaps it may be modified at some point.

The problem with allowing access to the account by both spouses is to prevent the opposite of what you describe from happening. In my experience it is often a betrayed spouse (or actively wayward spouse) who sticks the other spouse for a new contract or a huge debt. In the case of cell phones, I am not certain that it would be classified as marital debt if only one name is on the account, since the credit is being reported and has been offered in only the one name. I know that in the case of the death of one spouse, the other spouse is not responsible for the cell phone bill or any early termination fee associated with discontinuation of service. I also know that in many cases, a surviving spouse may simply keep making payments and continue the service on their own, but when the time comes to sign a new contract for extension of service that practice has caused me untold hours of problems.

The difficulty of allowing access to an account by the spouse is that full access means not only seeing account activity but modification of legal agreements as well. It may be a pain to have to go to the phone store and sign a piece of paper when your spouse is already there, but the flip side is to have no control over allowing a wife to sign a contract for her husband and vice versa.

If a person wishes to grant access to their spouse, that will be allowed under the current rules by making the spouse an authorized user on the account. In this case, only contractual changes would require the actual account holder to be present.

So it does not prevent a person who is not cheating on their spouse from allowing their spouse access to the account, but does prevent a a spouse from acquiring cell phone records to be used as evidence in a divorce or as leverage against a wayward spouse.

It also prevents a wayward spouse from modifying a contract and sticking the BS with an even bigger bill or the BS from screwing with the WS's account by shutting off a phone that is used for business as a way of revenge.

It would be nice if the option were open for a BS to gain access to the account to gather information, but who gets to decide and by what process? The current ruling is the result of misuse of the previous rules and exactly the scenarios I described being pretty common.

The new rules also prohibit a teenager from signing a new contract for service in Mom or Dad's names as well as keeping me from agreeing to a new contract in the name of my employer unless I am specifically authorised to sign a contract in writing by one of the principals in the company. The legal requirements for contracts are pretty uniform in the USA and cell phone carriers have been pretty lax in enforcing the law in regards to contractual signatures. Current practice allows for a verbal agreement to the contract and the courts have stated that it is still a binding contract, so now the companies must prove that they are not allowing unauthorized persons from committing that verbal contract in someone else's name. So the new rules close that loop hole by disallowing access to the account by anyone who is not the account holder of record UNLESS that person is added to the account as an authorized user by the primary account holder.

In the case you cited, if the lawyer allows a personal cell phone to be included in the divorce settlement as marital debt, that lawyer needs to be sued, IMO. Any bill incurred solely in the name of one person is not automatically transferred to a spouse. That is why mortgages require both spouses to sign and why deeds need to be in both names. At least here in Illinois, if my wife signs a car loan without my signature, my wages cannot be garnished for her failure to pay. But if I sign the note as well, then I am equally responsible for the debt.

This is why we tell newly betrayed spouses to cancel JOINT credit cards and lines of credit, to protect themselves from a wayward spouse intent on wracking up debt.
Allowing joint credit cards to be used is what incurs marital debt, not the closing of joint accounts and forcing the WS to gain credit in their own name.

FWIW, it means that under the new rules, I could go to jail for helping betrayed spouses gather inforation about their spouse's call activities.


Mark