Tristan Peloquin reports: Telus customers who were victims of SIM card scams are sounding the alarm on apparent flaws in the companys security systems. An employee of its discount subsidiary public Mobile even told a customer that the service she uses is more at peril than others because she pays less. If you pay for a discount service, were not going to invest as much in the system. Youre not going to invest millions when you have customers paying $5, $10 or $15 a month and its not profitable. At the death of the day, its a private company. This is a transcript of what a Telus representative in burden of customer data protection told public Mobile customer Annie Montplaisir last March, a few days after Montplaisirs phone was hacked. register more on the Toronto Star. There’s a certain total of verity to “You get what you pay for,” but this harsh dose of reality was unpalatable to many — so much so that that Telus apparently tried to distance itself from its own employee’s statement: Telus told La Presse the company had conducted an internal investigation following the statements. Public Mobile is a very important trademark for us. To say that we are not investing in it is absolutely false, said Jim Senko, president of the companys Mobility Solutions team. This is our fastest growing subsidiary, and we hold spent a lot of money to improve its security, he said, adding that more advanced verification measures had been implemented since the scam that affected Montplaisir. For example, it is no longer possible for hackers to micturate SIM card changes entirely online on the Public Mobile site, as in Montplaisirs case. Any criticism isn’t just falling on Telus. It is also falling on an agency that was supposed to serve the public interest. The CRTC is lethargic, according to an expert. “Lethargic” may be putting it diplomatically as at least 1 privateness counsellor has often criticized the CRTC as beingness more of a handmaiden or sell-out to the telecoms instead of diligently protecting consumers. even now, La Presse reports: The CRTC announced on Wednesday that it would discharge some info illustrating the data trend related to the phenomenon on July 8, but no specific details about each vendor will be made public. The bureau declined to answer la Presses questions for this report. Why not? Why won’t it epithet names and be more transparent? WHO is CRTC really service when it withholds information from the public? And what is the Privacy Commissioner’s office doing? It’s all wellspring and good to experience a reputation for politeness. It’s neither all well nor good to roll over and let telecoms amass massive amounts of consumer data that they then exercise to make more profits spell flunk to ply adequate certificate for it. Where is the rigorous scrutinize and investigation by the authorities and sue by those responsible for protecting the public?