how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2  |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
Re: Wow
Fine. Filtering does not require turning anything over to anybody. Your bank examples are no more sufficient than anything I offered as examples, as long as no information is turned over to third parties.
Since packet inspection is necessary for spam filtering, perhaps the spammers should seek government intervention to squelch spam filters. After all, they are no less legitimate than unauthorized distribution of copyright material.
Enough.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
Yes I do give up too. It's like banging my head on a brick wall with you. So at this point I'm done replying. Not because I give up but because the wall is too dense to let it hit home. My bank example is more than sufficient. It proves that while packets can be sniffed, if the information from them is turned over, then a court order is needed. That's all my example proves. However, sniffing alone is enough to arouse state and federal laws since it prevents LEGIT PACKETS at times from reaching their destination be it from ATT or an ISP routing through them.... and with that I will offer no further response to you. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to jc100
I give up. I really do. Who the the court that issues a court order, but the government? They are the ones who must comply with the U.S. Constitution.
But we were discussing filters, were we not? Your banking examples are no more applicable than the examples I gave, which you so summarily dismissed. We are not discussing extracting personal date to turn over to anybody. We are discussing filtering packet content, to determine if the content is unauthorized for distribution by the copyright holder.
I filter email on my mail server. So does my ISP, and yours. Do you know something? You can't filter spam without examining at least a part of the content of the email. Sender email address is one aspect of the email that I filter on. Or the server ID (EHLO string). I don't need no stinking court order to do that.
Comcast also examines packet content to apply Sandvine, in order to know whether to send a forged RST packet. Packets are inspected to determine the protocol, in order to know if the packets are the ones to be filtered. They have no court order allowing that, they are just doing that.
AT&T proposes to apply packet inspection to filter content based on copyright. No court order needed to do that, either.
Your examples of turning banking data over to another party are not the same thing as checking content for filtering contraband. The objective is not to punish wrongdoers, just to block unauthorized distribution of copyright protected material.
I will stand by my original assertion: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to packet filters. If it does, we who filter email in order to block spam damned well need to turn off our spam filters.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to NormanS
Sigh.. you know what? I'm beating a dead horse here. I don't know any better way to explain this. Yes, companies can share your information with third parties. HOWEVER, said THIRD PARTY CANNOT ACT UPON IT WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. Let's say for instance, your banks shares your banking information with a third party subsidiary. Let's say this third party notices some discrepancies in the person's banking history with their company. They can ask the bank for further details to investigate the fraud. However, the bank could not turn over such details due to privacy, state, and federal laws. Furthermore, t hat information would have to be obtain by a court order. Let me ask you, WHAT THE HELL FORCES ONE TO GET SUCH A DOCUMENT? The right to habeus corpus (Constitution) / due Process for the individual involved and being investigated. Furthermore, the right to be protected against illegal searches and seizures. IE state laws are based off this very aspect. We're arguing tit for tat here. Those state and federal laws were made to comply with BOTH of these clauses in the constitution. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
Private entities aren't prohibited from asking, but they can't issue warrants and subpoenas. Banks are prohibited from sharing with private entities because of privacy laws; civil and criminal statutes.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | reply to NormanS
Once again, read my example to see how exclusions apply. =). A bank is a private entity but it CANNOT share data without a court order. Hence, it's governed by the constitution which protects us from illegal searches and seizures. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
The U.S. Constitution dictates what the government can, and can't do. Private parties, such as the RIAA/MPAA, are governed by civil and criminal statutes. That is all there is to it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
I'll make this clean then I'm done hashing this out. Say for instance your bank suspects fraud is taking place on your account. They call the authorities and notify them of the fact. Can the authorities suddenly rush in, rip through your financial records, and lock you up suddenly? NO. WHY? Well FIRST THEY NEED A WARRANT. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO INITIATES THE PROCESS. A WARRANT IS STILL NEEDED. Hence, it does not matter if ATT says HEY government or HEY RIAA / MPAA here's the data, take a peek. For them to use this data, they need a warrant to take it any further. Otherwise, one can simply argue it was shared illegally and violated a customer's right to privacy and security. Just as your bank doesn't hand out your account records, nor can your ISP without due cause. So there lies the constitutional issue of search and seizure. Unless a court deems these records must be handed out, anyone acting upon the data is up for a huge lawsuit, and the evidence being tossed. That's what we call the judicial process. You must follow steps to obtain information. As with this case. ATT can filter and be up against state, federal, and interstate laws. Yet, if they pass this information along without a court order, it is a constitutional issue for all the reasons above. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100  :1) You're the one grasping on that TOS which turned around to bite you in the ass. Don't blame me you CANNOT READ CAREFULLY. You pointed to the TOS at justifying their actions. I did no such thing. I did not connect the TOS to anything about the NSA.
I solely proved you wrong. Therefore, you need to concede your point here so this issue can be put to rest.
There is nothing to concede. From the start I separated the NSA issue from the filter issue.
As per the NSA, you said the TOS alleviates them of responsibility, as with the filters.
Stop putting words in my mouth which I did not utter. I consider the NSA issue to be separate from the issue of filters. Always have. You are drawing conclusion based upon your prejudice.
I see no SUCH WORDING IN THEIR TOS ABOUT NOT DELIVERING AND ALTERING TRAFFIC. Find me that clause. You still HAVE NOT. Hence, a lack of it means they ARE NOT ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY. SWOOSH.
»helpme.att.net/article.php?item=441
quote:
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
You are prohibited from publishing, submitting, copying, uploading, posting, transmitting, reproducing, theft of, infringement on, or distributing information, software, or other material that is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, any other type of intellectual property rights, trademark laws (by rights of privacy or publicity) or other proprietary right of any party unless you own or control the rights thereto or have received all necessary consents to do the same. This prohibition includes the use of any material or information including images or photographs that are made available through an AT&T site or Service(s).
From which I infer that they can take steps to mitigate such activity.
2) I'm NOT dense, I got a thick skull to sink this argument into. You've been trying to justify their actions VIA a TOS, NOT ME.
You have been arguing a constitutional issue which does not exist.
3) As per Level three, ATT OWNS their OWN FIBER. ATT I'm SURE some companies lease their fiber. » www.goodnamehosting.com/Images/a···arge.jpgAs you can see, their backbone network is VERY EXTENSIVE and I'm sure other carriers pass through it.
Your ducky diagram shows the ATTW network, which sells/leases transit to ISPs, such as Comcast, Charter, et. al.
Commencing at hop #7, this trace is running through ATTW transit. But 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers do not always run through ATTW transit.
Show me where my traffic touched ATTW transit. This trace route does not ride on any part of your ducky diagram. What it has in common with the other trace route:
First six hops are on AT&T Internet Services (ATTIS) transit.
What is different from the other trace route:
From hop #7 to the end it does not touch ATTW transit.
As per the Filtering technology, it can happen at a DSLAM. It's called routers. Not only can you block ports, you can specify what information is allowed to pass through. Furthermore, you route data how you want. Whose to say an extra hop wont be added where as the data is first sent to ATT via the routers, before reaching the customer? Sure this will make pings suck, but it wouldn't be out of the question.
If the guy from DSLX is right, they have their own ATM connection at the DSLAM. They tap off on their own network. A DSLX customer's first IP hop will be on DSLX transit. I trust that a DSLX tech knows how the system is configured.
4) READ... R-E-A-D. I said if the data from ATT is given to those entities (government, RIAA, MPAA), it becomes a Constitution issue since the data was obtained without warrant. Just as a BANK CANNOT hand your financial records freely to anyone without a court order. Otherwise, it is a state, federal, and interstate commerce issue since it deals with filtering but not turning over the data (pending that's the case). GET THAT THROUGH THAT HEAD PLEASE.
READ... R-E-A-D. I said that the U.S. Constitution applies when a government agency is requesting the data. If it is not a government agency, if it is the RIAA/MPAA, whatever, it is not a constitutional issue. That in no way precludes a need for a court order to release information, it just isn't a constitutional issue.
READ... R-E-A-D. I said that SBC has, in the past, refused to release data to the RIAA/MPAA on the basis of the DMCA "brevet" subpoena. They were sued by the RIAA/MPAA over that very issue.
5) As per SBC, well tough luck to SBC. They bought the company and assumed it's liability. I guess they should have had better lawyers. Even if they didn't cooperate, they now must pay the price since they didn't investigate their purchase a little bit better.
Yes. They did buy the liability. I never said otherwise. And don't disagree. I am opposed to granting them retroactive immunity.
You able to grasp this or should we settle on the fact, you'll continue to try to argument your non-existing points, feeling like you've proved something here? So far, we' know your TOS argument sucks, Your support and justification for the NSA / Filterint holds no water, shall we continue?
For as long as it takes until you comprehend one simple fact: I am not trying to justify the NSA spying. Never was. I was questioning the application of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to AT&T's proposed anti-piracy filters. I continue to question that application.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
1) You're the one grasping on that TOS which turned around to bite you in the ass. Don't blame me you CANNOT READ CAREFULLY. You pointed to the TOS at justifying their actions. I solely proved you wrong. Therefore, you need to concede your point here so this issue can be put to rest. As per the NSA, you said the TOS alleviates them of responsibility, as with the filters. I see no SUCH WORDING IN THEIR TOS ABOUT NOT DELIVERING AND ALTERING TRAFFIC. Find me that clause. You still HAVE NOT. Hence, a lack of it means they ARE NOT ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY. SWOOSH.
2) I'm NOT dense, I got a thick skull to sink this argument into. You've been trying to justify their actions VIA a TOS, NOT ME.
3) As per Level three, ATT OWNS their OWN FIBER. ATT I'm SURE some companies lease their fiber. »www.goodnamehosting.com/Images/a···arge.jpg
As you can see, their backbone network is VERY EXTENSIVE and I'm sure other carriers pass through it.
As per the Filtering technology, it can happen at a DSLAM. It's called routers. Not only can you block ports, you can specify what information is allowed to pass through. Furthermore, you route data how you want. Whose to say an extra hop wont be added where as the data is first sent to ATT via the routers, before reaching the customer? Sure this will make pings suck, but it wouldn't be out of the question.
4) READ... R-E-A-D. I said if the data from ATT is given to those entities (government, RIAA, MPAA), it becomes a Constitution issue since the data was obtained without warrant. Just as a BANK CANNOT hand your financial records freely to anyone without a court order. Otherwise, it is a state, federal, and interstate commerce issue since it deals with filtering but not turning over the data (pending that's the case). GET THAT THROUGH THAT HEAD PLEASE.
5) As per SBC, well tough luck to SBC. They bought the company and assumed it's liability. I guess they should have had better lawyers. Even if they didn't cooperate, they now must pay the price since they didn't investigate their purchase a little bit better.
You able to grasp this or should we settle on the fact, you'll continue to try to argument your non-existing points, feeling like you've proved something here? So far, we' know your TOS argument sucks, Your support and justification for the NSA / Filterint holds no water, shall we continue? | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Summarized the main points w/o adding more length to my post. PERMITTED AND REQUIRED. It didn't alter the meaning. So yes, maybe you should try to stop pulling for straws. Exactly who is grasping at straws, here?
2) Glad we're settled on that point. Feel better having to admit that you're wrong on the TOS?
About the NSA spying? When did I ever say that it was okay?
3) Well that's fine SBC bought the liability but prior to 2006 ATT owned it. As per other networks cooperating, we don't fully know who. If they did, they should be just as liable. Or are you trying to justify bad behavior, as it seems you have done all along?
Are you really that dense? I am justifying nothing. No, I guess it isn't denseness, but persistent prejudice. Sorry.
3) A Comcast customer's data will only traverse ATTIS if he has a direct P2P connection with an AT&T customer
You're understanding of computers is limited, I can tell. When you visit a website or connect to places (p2p is an example but not limited to), you go through what's known as hops. Say you visit an international page, you might have to transverse ATT's lines as they own lots of level 3.
AT&T does not "own" Level 3. Or did you mean something else by "level 3". ATTIS carries 100% of the traffic of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers; it is the AT&T transit network for 'at&t Yahoo! HSI'. No 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customer can get to any part of the Internet without traversing ATTIS.
ATTIS does not carry Comcast, DSLR, or any other traffic, except as returns to AT&T customer requests. This is true for any transit network operated by any ISP. My point is that no carrier is buying transit on ATTIS. No filters on ATTIS will have an impact on any other ISP, except as their data to AT&T customers is going to be filtered. Their data to Comcast, Charter, Embarq, Earthlink, and Verizon customers will not be affected by the anti-piracy filters.
However, here's the big one. Leasing lines. Like Earthlink does to RoadRunner. If an ISP leases lines from ATT and has not agreed to have their customer's traffic monitored, guess what, they will be out of luck. Lots of smaller isps do this, and even some bigger ones. There go, a huge dilemma. Should this ISP now be forced to suffer liability as well, even if they have no alternatives of who to use for their pipes?
DSL Extreme is carried on AT&T lines from the premises to the DSLAM, but not beyond. DSLX runs their own ATM network. According to DSLX, AT&T anti-piracy filtering will not have any impact on DSLX users. Even if they attach the anti-piracy filters at the DSLAMs, DSLX installs their own cards for the customer connections. AT&T may own the copper, but, unless they can apply the filters closer to the premises than the DSLAM, they won't touch data carried by CLEC providers. ADSL doesn't work the same way as cable HFC at this level.
4) Repeating an error 50 times does not change the erroneous nature of the statement. The U.S. Constitution only applies to government, WRT to unreasonable search and seizure
It's not in error, you JUST CANNOT READ. I WILL SAY THIS I BIG LETTERS TO FACILITATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW APPLIES IF THE DATA GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR RIAA / MPAA AS THEY DID WITH THE NSA. IT WILL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WITHOUT COURT ORDER. OTHERWISE, YES, IT CONTENDS WITH STATE WIRETAP AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAWS.
The U.S. Constitution only applies to government data taps. The RIAA/MPAA can't put data taps in place.
BTW, do you know that SBC refused to turn over customer data to the RIAA/MPAA? They were sued by the RIAA/MPAA over that very issue.
5) I disagree. I saw nothing in the proposed filter solution to lead one to that conclusion.
History speaks for itself. They did it once, whose to say it won't happen again?
Historically, SBC refused to turn over customer data to the RIAA/MPAA under the DMCA "brevet subpoenas". We don't know that SBC ever cooperated with the NSA.
Historically, David Dornan, CEO of AT&T when they were cooperating with the NSA, left the company after the AT&T/SBC merger. Under SBC management, AT&T has remained mum about NSA cooperation, so we don't know what has been done since SBC took over.
As for a conclusion, there's nothing one sided about it. You simply won't let the magnitude of my points sink in long enough before responding.
There is nothing to sink in. The U.S. Constitution applies to government agencies and activities. Private entities are covered by civil, and criminal statutes.
The NSA listening rooms are unconstitutional, and I never disputed that.
The proposed AT&T anti-piracy filters appear to be just that, more like Comcast's Sandvine than data collection.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
Summarized the main points w/o adding more length to my post. PERMITTED AND REQUIRED. It didn't alter the meaning. So yes, maybe you should try to stop pulling for straws.
2) Glad we're settled on that point. Feel better having to admit that you're wrong on the TOS?
3) Well that's fine SBC bought the liability but prior to 2006 ATT owned it. As per other networks cooperating, we don't fully know who. If they did, they should be just as liable. Or are you trying to justify bad behavior, as it seems you have done all along?
3) A Comcast customer's data will only traverse ATTIS if he has a direct P2P connection with an AT&T customer
You're understanding of computers is limited, I can tell. When you visit a website or connect to places (p2p is an example but not limited to), you go through what's known as hops. Say you visit an international page, you might have to transverse ATT's lines as they own lots of level 3.
However, here's the big one. Leasing lines. Like Earthlink does to RoadRunner. If an ISP leases lines from ATT and has not agreed to have their customer's traffic monitored, guess what, they will be out of luck. Lots of smaller isps do this, and even some bigger ones. There go, a huge dilemma. Should this ISP now be forced to suffer liability as well, even if they have no alternatives of who to use for their pipes?
4) Repeating an error 50 times does not change the erroneous nature of the statement. The U.S. Constitution only applies to government, WRT to unreasonable search and seizure
It's not in error, you JUST CANNOT READ. I WILL SAY THIS I BIG LETTERS TO FACILITATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW APPLIES IF THE DATA GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR RIAA / MPAA AS THEY DID WITH THE NSA. IT WILL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WITHOUT COURT ORDER. OTHERWISE, YES, IT CONTENDS WITH STATE WIRETAP AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAWS.
5) I disagree. I saw nothing in the proposed filter solution to lead one to that conclusion.
History speaks for itself. They did it once, whose to say it won't happen again?
As for a conclusion, there's nothing one sided about it. You simply won't let the magnitude of my points sink in long enough before responding. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to jc100
said by jc100 :"We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law." If you read, I summarized that. Summarized it....where? I did not see any mention of that, only a partial quote of what preceded that.
You obviously don't read. AS PERMITTED OR REQUIRED BY LAW. READ UP, READ TWICE, MY POST STATED THAT. Hence, they WERE
1) NOT PERMITTED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
2) NOT REQUIRED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
Point made and Proven. Strike 1.
I am not contesting that the NSA monitoring violated anything you covered, ergo, you have proved exactly...nothing.
As per prior to Jan, 01 2006 changes hadn't been made to reflect any legal terms or attempt to alleviate themselves of liability. STRIKE 2. IE. Before SBC
All that I intended was to demonstrate that SBC bought liability. Did I fail to prove that? Sorry. I'll do better next time. BTW, what evidence to you have that the other Tier 1 networks are not cooperating with the NSA? Verizon, which bought the MCI/UUNet Tier 1 network, has joined AT&T in seeking retroactive immunity. Why would they need retroactive immunity if they didn't buy liability with that Tier 1 network. Of the seven remaining Tier 1 networks (such as Level 3, NTT, Sprint, et. al.), only Qwest has categorically denied cooperating with the NSA. Considering that probably 80% of Internet traffic traverses one, or another, of those nine Tier 1 transit networks, what are the odds that none of the others, besides Qwest, aren't cooperating with the NSA?
Hey batter batter. YOU'RE OUT. It's the fact they'll be filtering usage from other ISPS that's prohibited =).
What "fact" would that be? AT&T operates two transit networks. I have seen no evidence that they intend to put filters on the Tier 1 network (AT&T Worldnet Services, a.k.a. "ATTW".
From what I have read about the filters, they intend to apply them to their own customers using the AT&T Internet Services ("ATTIS") transit network. No other ISP traverses ATTIS, except as P2P endpoints between users. If you don't want your traffic to traverse ATTIS transit, you can damned well read the Spamhaus listing of ATTIS dynamic IP addresses, and add them to Peer Guardian. Problem solved.
I don't think their customers agreed to that clause. Not to mention, they don't mention they WILL be filtering, which then makes them liable. Find me the clause where they state traffic sent is not guaranteed to reach one's desired destination? I don't happen to see that.
A Comcast customer's data will only traverse ATTIS if he has a direct P2P connection with an AT&T customer. I currently have a P2P connection with a Comcast customer; 'c-67-177-x-x.hsd1.{state}.comcast.net'. TTBOMK, I have never agreed to the Comcast TOS. So what?
As per whether they turn over the Data is to whether or not the constitution applies for unreasonable search and seizure. I've stated that 50 times now.
Repeating an error 50 times does not change the erroneous nature of the statement. The U.S. Constitution only applies to government, WRT to unreasonable search and seizure.
If they don't then they simply are contending with state and federal laws.
Naturally, those would be the wiretap laws. And if the filters simply block content robotically, without utilizing the data in any other way, we are now in new legal territory. No data is actually checked by human agency, and it is, arguably, being done to manage the network.
The fact they cooperated so eagerly with the NSA wiretapping makes me think that we should expect this data to reach the hands of authorities.
I disagree. I saw nothing in the proposed filter solution to lead one to that conclusion.
So yes, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. Only, IF ONLY, you could read carefully enough to understand that. Sadly, I doubt this will happen.
A one-sided conclusion. But, I guess you are right. I am just too stupid to breathe. So I will continue to pollute your air until you send the enviro-cops to gag me.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to NormanS
"We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law."
If you read, I summarized that. You obviously don't read. AS PERMITTED OR REQUIRED BY LAW. READ UP, READ TWICE, MY POST STATED THAT. Hence, they WERE
1) NOT PERMITTED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
2) NOT REQUIRED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
Point made and Proven. Strike 1.
As per prior to Jan, 01 2006 changes hadn't been made to reflect any legal terms or attempt to alleviate themselves of liability. STRIKE 2. IE. Before SBC
"Show me the statute which prohibits blocking certain content. As long as they don't hand over any personal data to the **AA, what laws are being broken?"
Hey batter batter. YOU'RE OUT. It's the fact they'll be filtering usage from other ISPS that's prohibited =). I don't think their customers agreed to that clause. Not to mention, they don't mention they WILL be filtering, which then makes them liable. Find me the clause where they state traffic sent is not guaranteed to reach one's desired destination? I don't happen to see that.
As per whether they turn over the Data is to whether or not the constitution applies for unreasonable search and seizure. I've stated that 50 times now. If they don't then they simply are contending with state and federal laws. The fact they cooperated so eagerly with the NSA wiretapping makes me think that we should expect this data to reach the hands of authorities.
So yes, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. Only, IF ONLY, you could read carefully enough to understand that. Sadly, I doubt this will happen. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
And this part, you so conveniently omitted?
quote:
We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law.
I'm assuming this applies to all aspect of their TOS. It's the only one they post and it's the only part where it mentions handing over data. Therefore, they BROKE THEIR OWN AGREEMENT by handing out the information WITHOUT a court order. Obviously, you've taken a tone which has done nothing but justify BAD CONDUCT.
Allow me to refresh your memory about what I originally said that started this furball:
quote:
I can understand how wiretapping (allowing the government to listen in without warrants) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. I'd like to know what provision of the U.S. Constitution prohibits filtering copyright protected content.
On top of that, let me remind you that the the handing over of data provably happened under AT&T management prior to January 1, 2006, when AT&T and SBC were still separate entities.
I have never denied that the NSA monitoring is wrong, only that it is separate from the proposed anti-piracy measures the new AT&T (essentially SBC managed) under discussion.
As per ATT monitoring other traffic, whose to say they won't do both? IE then they break the law twice because they are mining information that passes through their pipes but DOESN'T belong to them.
Show me the statute which prohibits blocking certain content. As long as they don't hand over any personal data to the **AA, what laws are being broken?
AND this matter has now been successfully concluded, since your own link stuck the nail into the very fabric of your argument.
Only because of your selective quoting.
As the GI JOES said in the 1980s, knowing is half the battle and now that you know YOU'RE wrong, stop acting like you've got some superior high ground here.
I know no such thing.
P.S. here's their internet service link. » www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=7666#9Notice how it says we ONLY provide information when permitted by law or required to do so by court order. They WEREN'T permitting by law and had no court order. Hence, they breached it just as I said above for uverse.
quote:
We may, where permitted or required by law, provide personal identifying information to third parties (including credit bureaus or collection agencies) without your consent:
To prevent unlawful use of communications or other services, to assist in repairing network outages, and when a call is made to 911 from a customer phone and information regarding the caller’s location is transmitted to a public safety agency .
To notify a responsible governmental entity if we reasonably believe that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires or justifies disclosure without delay.
And nothing that I have read about their anti-piracy measures indicates that they intend to turn over any customer account information.
To summarize, I have stated:
quote:
I can understand how wiretapping (allowing the government to listen in without warrants) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This would apply to the NSA spying rooms revealed by a former AT&T (not SBC) employee in 2004. I don't believe that the NSA has that power under the U.S. Constitution. I have never stated otherwise.
quote:
I'd like to know what provision of the U.S. Constitution prohibits filtering copyright protected content.
That issue has not, yet, been adequately addressed.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
2 edits | reply to NormanS
Maybe you shouldn't pretend to understand something, when you yourself HAVE NOT READ IT.
We may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process, or to establish or exercise our legal rights or defend against legal claims. For U-verse TV subscribers, if a court order is sought by a non-governmental entity, we are required to notify the subscriber of the court order
As you can see, that's the ONLY mention of the law (»helpme.att.net/article.php?item=8620) and for all intensive purposes, it says they need a court order. I'm assuming this applies to all aspect of their TOS. It's the only one they post and it's the only part where it mentions handing over data. Therefore, they BROKE THEIR OWN AGREEMENT by handing out the information WITHOUT a court order. Obviously, you've taken a tone which has done nothing but justify BAD CONDUCT.
As per ATT monitoring other traffic, whose to say they won't do both? IE then they break the law twice because they are mining information that passes through their pipes but DOESN'T belong to them.
AND this matter has now been successfully concluded, since your own link stuck the nail into the very fabric of your argument.
As the GI JOES said in the 1980s, knowing is half the battle and now that you know YOU'RE wrong, stop acting like you've got some superior high ground here.
P.S. here's their internet service link. »www.att.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=7666#9
Notice how it says we ONLY provide information when permitted by law or required to do so by court order. They WEREN'T permitting by law and had no court order. Hence, they breached it just as I said above for uverse. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Don't NEED AN LLB to show proof of ignorance. Ad hominem, eh? Can't you do better than that?
I mean come on, your examples are pretty lousy. If a normal layman can find fault, then any LLB would eat them alive.
Finding "fault" is hardly proof of being right.
As per your LLB, please show me it, too. You have loads of examples, but for once give me proof on the second one taking place. O wait, you just got examples which fall outside the realm of the argument and the second one holds no water. Got ya.
If you mean that we are just a couple of barroom barristers duking it out, I guess you did that.
Yes, but those who DID NOT sign a new one are grandfathered in. ATT would have to notify ALL USERS of an update, spelling out the changes.
They did that. I've got an email from them around here, somewhere...
A couple of links to discussions about the change:
»AT&T Revamps Privacy Policy
»Has anyone tested cancellation because of new privacy policy
I'm sure they didn't write it out clearly their intent to monitor people. Please show me the letter if they did t hat says we will be mining your network traffic and that of other isps.
Ah. Here it is...
{Uploaded as a .txt file. You can change the extension to .eml, and it will open in a mail client.}
And what makes you think that they will monitor the traffic of other ISPs? Aside from the NSA issue, which pre-dates the SBC purchase of AT&T...hmmm. Maybe a little history.
Prior to January 1, 2006, AT&T and SBC were separate companies. A former AT&T employee mentioned that, in 2004, he was part of a project to feed a mirror port to a special room which only NSA personnel could access. In an AT&T facility in San Francisco. At that time AT&T was a long distance telephone carrier, CLEC (reselling Covad DSL service), and Tier 1 Internet transit carrier. SBC was an ILEC and ISP.
AT&T operated the "AT&T Worldnet Services" transit network. I presume it is that network which the NSA was (and probably still is) monitoring.
SBC operated the "SBC Internet Services" transit network, which carried their DSL customer traffic from the premises to the Internet. The SBC AUP/TOS (and Privacy Policy) would only have applied to traffic on the SBCIS network.
Subsequent to January 1, 2006, SBC took over AT&T, and changed some names. "SBC" became "AT&T Corp.", and the "SBC Internet Services" (SBCIS) became the "AT&T Internet Services" (ATTIS). The "AT&T Worldnet Services" (ATTW) were not changed.
At this time, 100% of the IP traffic of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers is carried on the ATTIS transit network. This is covered by the AT&T AUP/TOS (and Privacy Policy). 0% of the IP traffic of other ISPs (Comcast, Cox, Charter, Verizon, et. al.) is carried on ATTIS transit.
OTOH, only about 3 in 10 of my trace routes is carried on ATTW transit (AT&T Worldnet Services). Much of the rest is not carried on any of the 9 Tier 1 transit networks (IP traffic to Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft goes direct from ATTIS to those respective destinations).
WRT to NSA spying, we have no proof that the NSA isn't monitoring the traffic on other transit networks.
WRT to AT&T monitoring of IP traffic for enforcing anti-piracy measures, with only 30% of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' IP traffic carried on the ATTW transit network, odds are that they will not waste money putting those measures in effect on the ATTW transit network. Since that network carries IP traffic for many other ISPs, I don't see other ISP traffic being monitored by AT&T.
OTOH, this anti-piracy monitoring is intended to mitigate pirated content going to, and from, 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers, I expect that any monitoring equipment will be placed on the ATTIS transit network, because that handles 100% of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customer traffic. However, that carries no IP traffic of other ISPs, except as those ISP are endpoints for connections between their customers and 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers.
So, if you don't like the AT&T policy, and you don't agree to it, just don't communicate with 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers. Probably stay away from 'AT&T FastAccess' (former Bellsouth) and 'AT&T Worldnet Service' (DSL and Dial) customers, as well.
Also, as per above, OTHER ISPS that have their traffic are effected. Hence, what about people WHO DON'T use ATT, NEVER CONSENTED, and now have their traffic picked? O DAMN, I think you just fell down your slippery slope and don't have a rope back up to answer that one?
Only if AT&T is going to monitor the ATTW transit network; but if they do that, they will miss 70% of the traffic of their 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' users, and I can't begin to estimate what percentage of their 'AT&T FastAccess' and 'AT&T Worldnet' customers. The kind of monitoring in question would be most effective on the transit network carrying traffic from the customer premises to the edge of the respective AT&T ISP networks; it would be wasted on the AT&T Worldnet Services transit network.
As per the Constitution, it can still apply depending on how the data is used. Prove me otherwise.
When has the U.S. Constitution been applied in civil disputes between non-government parties?
At this point I have to say that your style of quoting is a royal pain to deal with. You failed to attribute my comments in a manner which makes interspersed commentary work out. I.e., you fail to indicate that I said:
quote:
Do you really think I am using those examples by way of justification? You are so wrong. I used them as examples of a "slippery slope" we have been on since day one. Somehow, we have managed to survive, despite those stupidities
In a way which makes it possible to contextualize my response in a rational manner.
Yes, I do. You seem to be finding every way to show support for these stupidities. I sincerely doubt this is a devil's advocate tone. Therefore, it's safe to assume you are a willing participant. Why else would you want to support such erosions of our freedoms? Just because we've survived it in the past, doesn't mean we'll continue to persevere. It's like a mountain. You can blast it only so many times before an avalanche occurs.
I am not supporting them. I am just noting that we have survived them, somewhat intact. You are just looking for ways to support a preconceived opinion; i.e., prejudiced.
{Damn! And now I have to find a cause for an "unbalanced quote" error. Could you, please, do a proper job of attributing comments, if only to mitigate the headache of trying to respond inline? Thank you.}
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :P.S. It's late, and I've had a long day. Sometimes the mind tells you to type and your fingers do the opposite. Which is why my retort was so short...too late, and too foggy to go point by point...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to NormanS
If that's all you can come back with for your retort, then I consider my point proven. As for your demeanor, you have successfully given credence to my post. You would be the type to vote based upon rhetoric instead of real issues. I mean, who really cares about grammar to the extent that they make it the centerpiece of their reply? Obviously, it seems to be your top priority, as a means to sway this debate. Hence, I'll bring it back to topic. So what's your reply? We're all awaiting it.
P.S. It's late, and I've had a long day. Sometimes the mind tells you to type and your fingers do the opposite. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Words speak louder than actions. You actually got that one backwards.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
