how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
Re: Wow 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 | |
| 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? | | |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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.
Tracing route to dcs.origin.comcast.akadns.net [204.127.228.15]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms chihiro.aosake.net [192.168.102.1]
2 3 ms 3 ms 2 ms suzuka.aosake.net [192.168.0.1]
3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms adsl-69-110-151-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.110.151.254]
4 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms 76.246.22.2
5 11 ms 11 ms 10 ms bb2-10g2-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.42.102]
6 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms ex1-p10-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.191.66]
7 14 ms 13 ms 13 ms gar7.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.79.101]
8 63 ms 63 ms 63 ms tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.85.138]
9 60 ms 60 ms 60 ms cr1.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.19.97]
10 57 ms 56 ms 57 ms cr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.3.122]
11 57 ms 58 ms 57 ms tbr1.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.19.130]
12 58 ms 57 ms 57 ms tbr1.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.122.10.49]
13 56 ms 56 ms 57 ms gar5.dlstx.ip.att.net [12.123.16.209]
14 57 ms 58 ms 57 ms 12.122.255.226
15 57 ms 57 ms 57 ms mdf001c7613r0004-gig-12-1.dal1.attens.net [63.241.193.14]
16 58 ms 57 ms 57 ms 63.241.206.234
17 57 ms 57 ms 58 ms 192.168.96.77
18 58 ms 58 ms 59 ms www.comcast.net [204.127.228.15]
Trace complete.
Commencing at hop #7, this trace is running through ATTW transit. But 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers do not always run through ATTW transit.
Tracing route to dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms chihiro.aosake.net [192.168.102.1]
2 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms suzuka.aosake.net [192.168.0.1]
3 12 ms 12 ms 11 ms adsl-69-110-151-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [69.110.151.254]
4 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms 64.164.107.1
5 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms bb1-10g2-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.42.100]
6 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms ex2-p12-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net [151.164.94.47]
7 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms so-0-1-2.sjc11.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.66.245]
8 92 ms 92 ms 92 ms so-4-1-0.nyc22.ip.tiscali.net [89.149.186.206]
9 86 ms 87 ms 86 ms netaccess-gw.ip.tiscali.net [213.200.73.122]
10 111 ms 111 ms 102 ms 12.ae0.gbr1.tl9.nac.net [209.123.11.71]
11 103 ms 91 ms 91 ms 0.so-0-1-0.gbr1.oct.nac.net [209.123.11.142]
12 92 ms 92 ms * www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
13 92 ms 93 ms 93 ms www.dslreports.com [209.123.109.175]
Trace complete.
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 | |
| 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. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 | |
| 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. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 | |
1 edit | 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. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | 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 | |
| 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. | |
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 | |
|
