 | 2 Jan 06 |
In 2006, I think it’s time for common sense to start taking precedence over rules, regulations and bureaucracy.
I ended 2005 reading this article in my local newspaper. Here’s the scoop: A mom is getting ready to leave, puts the baby in his car seat, tosses in her cell phone and then she remembers that she left something in the house. She runs back in.
A scum-sucking thug steals the car with the baby inside.
Mom panics, calls the police, who immediately put out an Amber Alert. Then the parents realize that their cell phone is in the car and it has GPS tracking. The parents and the police detective call the cell phone company. They ask them to activate the GPS tracking to tell them where the phone is, which will lead to the car and the baby.
The cell phone company says, “Sorry we can’t do that. You’ll need a subpoena.”
The parents and detective plead with the company. “Please, it’s an emergency; the baby’s life is at stake!”
“Sorry, we must protect our client’s privacy.” WTF? EXCUSE ME BOTH CLIENTS ARE ON THE PHONE WITH YOU, BEGGING YOU TO SAVE THEIR BABY’S LIFE! WHOSE PRIVACY ARE YOU PROTECTING HERE? But apparently they have a slightly looser company policy for urgent circumstances and say, “What we can do is have you come in, sign some forms and pay us $25.00 then we’ll activate the GPS system.”
According the newspaper article, the parents and police detective continued to plead with the company but to no avail. Because, and this is a direct quote “We protect our customers’ privacy above all else in these situations.”
The good news is that an alert driver had seen the Amber Alert and spotted the car parked along side the road. The baby was still strapped in his car seat and perfectly safe. A happy ending due to a Good Samaritan being both observant and caring.
But the folks at the cell phone company? They defended their actions, once again citing their policies to protect customers’ privacy.
Oh good, because I am much more concerned about my privacy than the life of my baby. And by the way, Idiot Cell Phone Company, both the customers GAVE YOU PERMISSION. Yes it was on the phone, but gosh, they were pretty darn busy trying to find their carjacked/kidnapped baby. You might want to cut them a little slack.
This article made me furious. What kind of people “stick to the rules” when the consequences could be the life of a baby? I’m actually a big believer in rules, but I’m also a dedicated fan of Common Sense. If I had been on the employee of the cell phone company taking the call from two desperate and distraught parents and a police detective, all of which the cell phone company appeared to be able to verify, I hope I would thought, “screw the rules” and done everything I could to help find that child.
To the Idiot Cell Phone Company, this situation you find yourself in is called a Public Relations Nightmare. If you had done the right thing—you’d be called Heroes. You might want to consider that the next time a baby’s life is interfering with your rules on protecting your customer’s privacy!
Well there it is, folks…my first rant of 2006! Stay tuned, I’m sure there will be more!
© 2006 – 2009, Jennifer Lyon. All rights reserved.
Award winning author, Jennifer Lyon, always wanted to be a witch. Since her witch-powers never materialized, she went onto Plan B and now she creates magic in her books. In her new series, the author of the acclaimed Samantha Shaw Mystery Series (written as Jennifer Apodaca) introduces the Witch Hunters, legendary men who must overcome a curse to team up with witches and fight evil.
Subscribe to Posts 
Wow, Jen. Unbelievable. That deserves a rant. Ther story had a good ending, with no thanks to the cell phone company. I hope the company gets a lot of bad publicity out of this. If a lot of indignant customers change their cell phone company, their policy will change. Apparently decency won’t do the trick, but I bet money will.
by Edie Ramer January 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 amI didn’t sign up for a subscription so I couldn’t read the article but would love to know what cell service provider it was. First to never subscribe to them, and second to tell them I will never subscribe to them. Idiots all. Sheesh – I’d be screaming threats of persecution and giving this story out to every national news agency I could find. I’m with Edie the bottom line is always money, that and their image/reputation is the place to hit them.
by Cele January 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 amYou’re right, Cele, for companies it’s the cha-ching bottom line. I believe in capitalism. But doh, how dumb of this company. The saving-the-baby-was-the-right-thing-to-do aside, look at the great media exposure they would have received, as well as good will from all of the new clients they would have garnered, instead, if they were my company, I’d drop them like a bad rash, and let the powers that be know why.
by Karin January 2nd, 2006 at 11:48 amHi Edie, Cele and Karin. The cell phone company is Sprint. I coudn’t find a way to link to the newspaper article without having to sign in–sorry! I knew you’d all be as outraged as I am. Thank God that baby was okay, no thanks to Sprint.
by Jen January 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 pmWell – thank heavens – they’re not my carrier for anything, but the certainly will be getting a letter of outrage from me. And Gee! I maybe a DJ in a small market, but I will be searching the AP for a story to talk about over the air.
by Cele January 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pmOMG, I’m shocked. You can call the bank and if you give them your mother’s maiden name and last four of your social, you can pretty much do anything and everything with your money. When I call my cell phone company, I can do anything I want if I give them my contact info and social (which is another rant for another day).
Sprint has some explaining to do . . . Thank God the baby is safe.
by Allison January 2nd, 2006 at 3:49 pmThat just chills my blood. What if the child had been killed? How would the cell phone company like THAT on their record?
by Amy January 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 pmCele, any way we can spread the word and remind people that a child’s life is more important than rules is a good thing.
Allison, I know exactly what you mean. I put my underage son’s cell phone in my name and he was able to do all kinds of changes on the phone. I was amazed. Fortunately he asked me ahead of time but the cell phone company didn’t know that.
Amy, it’s hard to believe that thought didn’t occur to the people at Sprint. I mean the detective pleaded with them too. It’s just sad.
by Jen January 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 amI’m surprised the mother wasn’t arrested for child endangerment. That’s how bizarre our world has gotten. Common sense – what’s that?
Mo
by Maureen January 3rd, 2006 at 8:50 amGood rant, Jen, and thanks for the heads-up. I’m glad this didn’t turn into a tragedy, and I’m doubly glad I’m not with Sprint. (Nor will I ever be after hearing about this screw-up) Maybe they fired a couple thousand people too many during their frequent cut-backs, or maybe they just axed the ones that did have common sense.
by Jan January 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pmYikes, Sprint just merged with my company. Methinks I’ll be making a call.
by Karin January 3rd, 2006 at 5:50 pm