RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to jc100
Re: Wow
said by jc100  :by letting them get away with every violation of our constitution possible. Be it from their NSA wiretapping, to now inspecting what goes over their network. I didn't realize the constitution forbid them from inspecting what goes over their own network.
Otherwise, great rant... |
|
gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
1 edit | said by RJ44 said :
I didn't realize the constitution forbid them from inspecting what goes over their own network.
Otherwise, great rant...
Yeah well, try "inspecting" the satellite or cable tv signals that cross over your own network (airspace and wires inside your house/apartment) without being a subscriber and see how legal those companies think that is. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
3 edits | reply to RJ44
Actually, the constitution does protect us. Maybe you should try reading it. It's that little clause about NEEDING A WARRANT for illegal searches and seizures. No matter the network, if you ARE NOT breaking the law, a company under no circumstance can assume guilt for everyone. This filter does just that by looking at everyones information, and determining what can be passed through. In essence, ATT is going from Dumb Pipe to content monitor. In that case, they are restricting the flow of information and deciding which can pass or what is restricted. Hence, they are using the logic guilty until innocent. That doesn't fly. As for their network, try again. Shareholders own it too. Also, they have to comply with FEDERAL LAWS when doing business in the U.S. I'm sure this breaches a few, and the courts will hammer that out. So try again and read up before commenting. Might make you a bit more intelligent when trying to insult someone else.
P.S. Your employer reading your email or monitoring you is different. IT IS THEIR NETWORK. They pay the bill. When you are the subscriber, you foot that one, which guarantees you certain rights under the law. IE. A right to expect your information will not be monitored without a court approval. A right to send and transmit whatever you want. As I said above, ATT is going to be sued on this one. Look forward to it. (Stay Tuned) |
|
swa
@rr.com
| Why the heck would att need a warrant to read what's on their own network? They own it. They can do whatever they like with it. The constitution just says the government can't interfere with it it. A law preventing ATT from reading something on their own network would actually be unconstitutional itself. You paying a subscription fee to ATT doesnt grant you any sort of ownership over ATTs property - their network. Of course if you can afford it go ahead and sue. It's not like 99% of the people in this country give a rat's ass about the constitution anyway. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | 1) There is a TOS in place which would have to be changed. IE giving every customer a chance to cancel.
2) ATT would most likely be breaking Multiple State and Federal Laws by data mining such information. As I said above, ITS NOT their network. It's the shareholders =) and subscribers. As when you buy a subscription, you are basically leasing that aspect of their service. It's a lease agreement the service I pay for.
Therefore, the constitution can come into play. As we saw with the NSA, this information could be turned over and handed over to the government or other agencies. Hence, exposing their customers to unforeseen ramifications. Look at it this way, NO ISP has yet to tread on the dangerous ground of looking at what gets sent. It opens the ISP for liability if files are shared, it opens the ISP to privacy invasion lawsuits, and worst of all, it breaks loads of laws. Depending on how this is carried out, you better believe it'll end up in court. As I stated, the constitution does come into play as even though this is a private network, it must abide by laws set forth for its operation in the U.S. |
|
krew
join:2007-10-31
Crete, IL
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jc100
The Constitution was DESIGNED to protect us. However,the current Administration has orchestrated provisions to bypass them entirely. While the courts have recently been chipping away at parts, the majority of the loopholes remain! Anyone vacation in Cuba recently?
And if you think your phone company is bad, ask your banker! Having been in the banking industry for 20 years, I can tell you that a whole lot of data is shared with Big Brother....and that is required by law!
Cranial Rectal Inversion:
** The US Treasury Deapartment oversees both the Treasury (IRS) and National Banks (OCC). Bank's are required to protect customer data, which included removing identifying information (e.g., SSN, address, etc). Even checks that you write must be safeguarded when they get into your bank's hands (ever see how many people handle the check you wrote at Macy's)? Yet, the IRS still asks you to write your SSN on the check you mail them. Identity Theft: SSN, Name, Address, Bank Account #.......good bye credit rating!
**TSA: Same issue as above. To transport backup media to a hot site using a commercial flight, you are required to tape the key for the media locker inside the shipping container. Yet, as a bank we are required to protect that customer data from disclosure...and maintain a well documented and tested recovery plan (which usually involves key people travelling). While the push to go wire based is underway, a large majority of banks still move media. Who trusts the TSA with their bank account (let alone their new "back" scatter technology (may be the answer to access to health care)?
And I doubt very seriously that if AT&T launches, the others are right behind...if not alongside.....
McCarthyism anyone? |
|
NetMan
@bellsouth.net
| reply to swa
Nobody is mentioning that ATT, along with almost EVERY other carrier, have NNI agreements (Network to Network Interface. Meaning if I am a Sprint subscriber, intending to send information to a Level3 subscriber (or maybe overseas), at some point my information MAY cross the ATT network. IF ATT intends to do as they wish, they will not only have the capability to monitor traffic from THEIR customers, they have the ability to filter traffic from EVERYBODY. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Yep. That too. |
|
