Will AT&T Filter Discussion Of Their Filters? > Wow

reply to jc100

Re: Wow

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.

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

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.

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.

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