AT&T Pushes Internet Piracy Filters At CES > No more carrier status...

No more carrier status...

I don't think that they have common carrier status because they are doing this on their ISP level and not their Internet backbone.

Edit: I someone wanted to make a fuss it would probably be about their DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions.

reply to claco
I always see these posts regarding carrier status, but is this a reality in modern times? Are there enforcible laws that ding providers who muss with content instead of just passing it along? I've never seen an example of an ISP losing their "carrier status" because of their choice to filter or shape traffic.

I don't think we've ever had an issue with ISPs monitoring what their customers are doing and telling them "nope, you can't view that". So there wouldn't be an example. When the ISP stops passing data along to customers and starts inspecting and deciding the legitimacy of the data I don't believe they'll be immune to lawsuits. If the ISP is monitoring traffic and inspecting it to determine if its pirated I believe they can then be held responsible for piracy on their network.

Edit: The law was explained to me like this. UPS doesn't look inside your package. They've got no clue what it is. If you packaged an illegal substance in the box UPS can't be held responsible. They don't check what they're shipping. The shipper is legally responsible for what they're putting in that box.

reply to RainWind7
Well Yes and no on the UPS example. Companies do make you declare what you post and assume it is truthful. Also, these companies (UPS, USPS, Fedex DHL, etc), scan packages to make sure they are not drugs or explosives I am sure. I would imagine some packages are screened without being opened. Therefore, these companies are liable if say something explosive were delivered. I don't think for one moment large packages go without inspection. Hence, postal carriers do hold liability in what's mailed or so I'd think. However, a better example would be with freight. If a company fails to inspect their containers properly (as is happening now) and something gets in, I'm sure they can fine that company.

reply to RainWind7
You might want to carefully inspect the telco immunity bill.

reply to claco
Nah, we won't screw with anything as uninspiring as that. The best thing to do here is to let AT&T go ahead and make the investment, roll this out completely, and then introduce legislation that requires any network provider who practices content filtering to filter for obscene content and child pornography. No matter how many overpaid ex-staffers SBC throws at that one, they will lose; after all, won't SOMEBODY please think about the children. I expect we could move that in a matter of weeks. After all, who can argue against protecting the children.

For the repubs, we're not requiring investment by network operators who have chosen not to add this tier to the networks, all we're saying is that if you are already filtering, you have to do this too. For the dems, well, we're protecting the children, and they don't have a problem with new business rules. Criminal sanctions for failure the filter the child porn sound about right, seeing as AT&T has opened the door. After that, Justice just has to have an intern set up an account with a web-based usenet provider, access it over AT&T, and let the fines fly.

reply to jc100
I've had items of mine opened while in transit, but it was by Customs at the US-Canada border. I'm pretty sure UPS and Fedex couldn't care less about what's in the package, because they aren't paid to care.

reply to hill rat
I find your post obscene.

reply to RainWind7
Yes however, UPS clearly posts they reserve the right to inspect any packaged tendered to them for transportation/carrage. The same as FedEx, USPS (though they have more hoops to jump through b4 its ok), DHL, ect....

reply to jc100
Wrong, unless its international, there isent any "scanning" outher than the barcode, too many packages to process to do that.