how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2  |
flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL | Wow
The only thing i can say is........dammm....and LOL | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
3 edits | Knowledge is power. By spreading the word, people become infuriated and will demand that their politicians DO NOT give immunity or allow such things to occur. Three CHEERS for this guy! The problem is, that too many Americans would rather sit idle while the Commander and Chimp err Chief works in cahoots with this company 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'm simply sitting and waiting for MORE LAWSUITS to hit ATT when they deny legitimate packets to be sent on the basis of false positives. Similarly, I await people suing due to privacy invasions as well. Good old ATT just want to enrage the whole country while they are at it. I bet they will piss their pants if a Republican doesn't win and blanket immunity isn't awarded for all this crap! Let's just hope the Democrats don't make that same mistake of wanting to push this through! It's not like they don't have their own price tag either. | |
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:   | reply to flycuban
That took some balls, good job! | |
kherr
Premium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL
clubs: | reply to jc100
You mention false positives ...... what happens when there is a false negative and copyrighted material gets threw ???? | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to jc100
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. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :he problem is, that too many Americans would rather sit idle...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 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.
I'm simply sitting and waiting for MORE LAWSUITS to hit ATT when they deny legitimate packets to be sent on the basis of false positives. Similarly, I await people suing due to privacy invasions as well.
Why are you waiting? Doesn't that make you the same as those you've just denigrated as "letting them get away with "it"?
I bet they will piss their pants if a Republican doesn't win and blanket immunity isn't awarded for all this crap!
More likely they will pay more swag to the Dems to get what they want.
Let's just hope the Democrats don't make that same mistake of wanting to push this through! It's not like they don't have their own price tag either.
You bet they do. Pay them what they want and they will give you our first born children. | |
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. | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to NormanS
Norman it's that clause illegal search and seizures. Even though it's ATT's Network, they also will be sifting through OTHER TRAFFIC that passes through from various carriers. The point where the constitution comes in is where and how they use this information. If the NSA wiretapping is any foreshadowing, they'll be turning over this infomration to the authorities. Therefore, it will have been obtained without a court order and shared with the government. IE the same thing they did with the NSA. Now, if they only filter and DON'T turn over the data (be it the government, MPAA, RIAA for civil / criminal punishment) they then have federal and state laws to contest with. IE interstate commerce, etc etc. These vary state by state and of course. Not to mention the federal laws that apply here for doing business in the U.S. As for lawsuits, ATT has so many pending right now, it's not funny. Thanks to Chris Dodd, they don't have their long sought after immunity either. Let's hope it stays that way. Att's business practices are DISGUSTING. I don't have them but who knows where your traffic routes to so we're all effected.
As per the Democrats. So far, they haven't given the immunity. The Republicans are all GUN HO about doing so. Luckily, there are a few Democrats with some dignity to stand up for the American people. Let's hope enough of them will exist and can fight off those that will be bought. Simply put, all politicians got their price, let's hope a few have set the bar too high (at least higher than Republicans). | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by jc100 :Norman it's that clause illegal search and seizures. Only applies to government agencies. The whole of the U.S. Constitution is designed to limit the powers of the government.
Even though it's ATT's Network, they also will be sifting through OTHER TRAFFIC that passes through from various carriers. The point where the constitution comes in is where and how they use this information. If the NSA wiretapping is any foreshadowing, they'll be turning over this infomration to the authorities. Therefore, it will have been obtained without a court order and shared with the government. IE the same thing they did with the NSA.
Whose network is it? The Government's network? I am mindful of a case where a private citizen (could have been a private corporation, but...) overheard a drug deal that was being conducted on a cell phone, and bleeding into her baby monitor. She called the police. They asked her if it was okay to tape their phone conversation. She said, "Yes". Defense tried to quash the evidence on grounds that it was an "illegal wiretap" (no warrant). Judge denied. Seems that, because the lady owned the baby monitor, and initiated the call to the police, and permitted the police to record her end of the call, that a warrant was not necessary. Overheard conversation.
I suspect that the same principle applies here. The government needs a warrant to obtain the data, but not to accept data freely offered. Something like that.
Now, if they only filter and DON'T turn over the data (be it the government, MPAA, RIAA for civil / criminal punishment) they then have federal and state laws to contest with. IE interstate commerce, etc etc. These vary state by state and of course. Not to mention the federal laws that apply here for doing business in the U.S.
Common Carrier stuff. I believe that ISPs are not treated as Common Carriers by the FCC. Hardly a Constitutional issue.
As for lawsuits, ATT has so many pending right now, it's not funny.
I think most corporations face at least some lawsuits at any given time of the year. That is why they keep legal staff around.
Thanks to Chris Dodd, they don't have their long sought after immunity either. Let's hope it stays that way.
Once the election dust settles, they will be back; just like Ahnold. And if it is a Democratic administration, they'll be paying off Democrats, instead of paying off Republicans. Mind who gets your votes.
Att's business practices are DISGUSTING. I don't have them but who knows where your traffic routes to so we're all effected.
All businesses are in it for profit, not charity. There is no more humanity in a business than a CEO brings to the corporate culture. Once in a rare while, you get a humane corporate culture; but it only last as long as the humane management. Ask anybody at Hewlett Packard what happened to the "HP Way" after Carly Fiorina got hold of that company.
As per the Democrats. So far, they haven't given the immunity. The Republicans are all GUN HO about doing so. Luckily, there are a few Democrats with some dignity to stand up for the American people. Let's hope enough of them will exist and can fight off those that will be bought. Simply put, all politicians got their price, let's hope a few have set the bar too high (at least higher than Republicans).
Not all of the Republicans. And the Democrats are in it for the power as much as the Republicans. They all take stands based on the money that they can squeeze from the lobbyists, and the votes they might get if they appear to take a populist stand. There are a few good Republicans, and there are more than a few not-so-good Democrats. The longer that they have served, the more likely that they have become jaded by lobbyist dollars.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| First off, you try to reply with a response, but it holds no water. Let's start with the first thing, your example. The airways are public domain. Since no one had to physically tap the man's phone to obtain the evidence, pending this case happened, they got around the need for a warrant. I don't agree with that, but hey good lawyers can argue anything. HOWEVER, ATT WILL NEED TO PHYSICALLY ALTER their service in order to monitor the data. Yes, there's a difference, it's not just whoops we stumbled upon the data and now we have it. It's more like we're making the attempt to obtain all and any information that pass through our systems. There's your BIG DIFFERENCE. Where as the lady heard a call accidentally, nothing ATT is doing falls under that category. So back to my argument. Yes, the constitution applies. Private network or not. They are not allowed to comply with a government agency or any other without court orders. As I said, look at the NSA case. Now if they want to change their TOS to say they hand out your data to all parties who request it, and respect no privacy, that's a different story. The customer would be agreeing to such a waiver. I'm going to venture out none did so. ATT would have to then alter their agreement, giving EVERY CUSTOMER a chance to say BYE BYE. I'm sure many if not most would knowing their information would be handed out like candy at Halloween.
As for Democrats and Republicans. There are a few good ones but not many. I tend to agree, the longer they are in, the more career they become. Still, all it takes is one or two good people to fight a bad issue. Enough press will make the slimeballs coward away since they favor keeping their posts. Also, if history tells us anything, power shifts mean investigations. That's when people go to jail. Yes, politicians have be locked away for corruption. So most politicians want to take "money" but do so in a way it doesn't complete IRK the public and give way to public outrage down teh road. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by jc100 :First off, you try to reply with a response, but it holds no water. Show me your LLB.
Let's start with the first thing, your example. The airways are public domain. Since no one had to physically tap the man's phone to obtain the evidence, pending this case happened, they got around the need for a warrant. I don't agree with that, but hey good lawyers can argue anything.
I will disagree with your disagreement about the need for a warrant in that case. However...
HOWEVER, ATT WILL NEED TO PHYSICALLY ALTER their service in order to monitor the data. Yes, there's a difference, it's not just whoops we stumbled upon the data and now we have it. It's more like we're making the attempt to obtain all and any information that pass through our systems. There's your BIG DIFFERENCE. Where as the lady heard a call accidentally, nothing ATT is doing falls under that category.
Okay, let's try the photo case. Cupertino, California; couple of years back. Photo clerk processing a role of file was doing a quality check and noticed suspicious content in the photos. Called the police. Police obtained a warrant, and investigated. Led to charges of bomb making.
AT&T intends to monitor their network for signs of copyright violations; primarily to filter, not to prosecute; but there is still the possibility of accidental discovery of signs of other illicit activity.
So back to my argument. Yes, the constitution applies. Private network or not. They are not allowed to comply with a government agency or any other without court orders. As I said, look at the NSA case.
The NSA case is an unwarranted search; allowing the government to access data without a warrant. Violates the unreasonable search clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't apply when a private party is doing it. Though other wiretap laws probably should apply, it isn't a Constitutional issue.
Now if they want to change their TOS to say they hand out your data to all parties who request it, and respect no privacy, that's a different story. The customer would be agreeing to such a waiver. I'm going to venture out none did so. ATT would have to then alter their agreement, giving EVERY CUSTOMER a chance to say BYE BYE.
You might want to read the AT&T AUP/TOS one more time. It offers no guaranty of privacy.
I'm sure many if not most would knowing their information would be handed out like candy at Halloween.
There already was a flap over rewording of their TOS. This very issue. It was revised a couple of years back to clarify that we have no expectation of privacy.
As for Democrats and Republicans. There are a few good ones but not many. I tend to agree, the longer they are in, the more career they become. Still, all it takes is one or two good people to fight a bad issue. Enough press will make the slimeballs coward away since they favor keeping their posts. Also, if history tells us anything, power shifts mean investigations. That's when people go to jail. Yes, politicians have be locked away for corruption. So most politicians want to take "money" but do so in a way it doesn't complete IRK the public and give way to public outrage down teh road.
We got on the "slippery slope" before the ink was dry on the U.S. Constitution. You might want to research the "Whiskey Rebellion", and the "Alien and Sedition Acts". And check the "US vs. Miller" decision of SCOTUS, 1939. I have my doubts about the RICO Act, not to mention DMCA and Patriot. But this has been going on at least since 1794. President George Washington, himself, enforced Alexander Hamilton's excise tax on whiskey, and ordered troops to oppose the rebellion.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Once again you are FULL OF BAD BAD BAD EXAMPLES. Don't quit your day job. Seriously. A person turning in film is SUBMITTING it at their OWN WILL. Hence, those pictures are entered into a "public domain / environment" once they are taken to a photo processor. Therefore, if that photo processor sees anything illegal, he is required by law to report it. IE child pornography, kidnapping, etc. So try again. We're waiting.
As for the Constitution, you still miss the point. It doesn't matter if a private party is involved. On the case above, laws had to be specifically MADE requiring photo clerks to turn in pictures, absolving them of responsibility. No such laws exist for Phone Companies deciding to Data mine and then subsequently turn over what they find. Hence, they are liable, if this information goes to any agency outside of theirs. It was gathered illegally, and even with a well worded TOS, good lawyers can pick it apart and find ways . However, TOS aside, you still fail to overcome the fact that State and Federal laws govern how information can be collected and used. So let's assume they don't share it, you still have these two entities to overcome.
Last, so you are saying you support POOR choices made by this government? You in favor of Slavery? You gun ho for Japanese Internment Camps? You wild for the Mcarthy Era? You ecstatic about what's happening now? It seems you support these poor choices by finding rationales to justify them. Talk about blind faith. Your the type of person that landed us in this mess. You chose a leader based upon rhetoric and not qualifications. Spat a few promises, kiss a few babies, say you love god, and your vote was sealed. Sad man, sad. | |
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by jc100 :Once again you are FULL OF BAD BAD BAD EXAMPLES. Once again...show me your LLB!
Don't quit your day job. Seriously. A person turning in film is SUBMITTING it at their OWN WILL. Hence, those pictures are entered into a "public domain / environment" once they are taken to a photo processor. Therefore, if that photo processor sees anything illegal, he is required by law to report it. IE child pornography, kidnapping, etc. So try again. We're waiting.
Please read the AT&T AUP/TOS. Please. What you put on the wire isn't private, if I understand what they have written. You are voluntarily submitting data to their network.
As for the Constitution, you still miss the point. It doesn't matter if a private party is involved. On the case above, laws had to be specifically MADE requiring photo clerks to turn in pictures, absolving them of responsibility. No such laws exist for Phone Companies deciding to Data mine and then subsequently turn over what they find. Hence, they are liable, if this information goes to any agency outside of theirs. It was gathered illegally, and even with a well worded TOS, good lawyers can pick it apart and find ways . However, TOS aside, you still fail to overcome the fact that State and Federal laws govern how information can be collected and used. So let's assume they don't share it, you still have these two entities to overcome.
The U.S. Constitution only provides limits on the power of the government. What a company does, by way of data mining, is outside the purview of the U.S. Constitution. Although, as I noted in my post, other laws may apply. Including anything WRT to liabilities.
Last, so you are saying you support POOR choices made by this government? You in favor of Slavery? You gun ho for Japanese Internment Camps? You wild for the Mcarthy Era? You ecstatic about what's happening now? It seems you support these poor choices by finding rationales to justify them.
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.
I am all for the repeal of RICO, DMCA, and Patriot (among others).
Talk about blind faith. Your the type of person that landed us in this mess. You chose a leader based upon rhetoric and not qualifications. Spat a few promises, kiss a few babies, say you love god, and your vote was sealed. Sad man, sad.
You have no idea what type of person I am. You are jumping to conclusions based on unwarranted assumptions. Mind what "assume" really means...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Once again...show me your LLB!
Don't NEED AN LLB to show proof of ignorance. I mean come on, your examples are pretty lousy. If a normal layman can find fault, then any LLB would eat them alive. 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.
Please read the AT&T AUP/TOS. Please. What you put on the wire isn't private, if I understand what they have written. You are voluntarily submitting data to their network.
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. 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.
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?
The U.S. Constitution only provides limits on the power of the government. What a company does, by way of data mining, is outside the purview of the U.S. Constitution. Although, as I noted in my post, other laws may apply. Including anything WRT to liabilities
After I argued that point... As per the Constitution, it can still apply depending on how the data is used. Prove me otherwise.
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
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.
You have no idea what type of person I am. You are jumping to conclusions based on unwarranted assumptions. Mind what "assume" really means...
Well, I have never met you, but based upon my impression here, you strike me as that type. Words speak louder than actions. | |
|
