AT&T Piracy Filters: 'Corporate Seppuku'Move could make themselves legally liable for infringement ( old news - 10:42AM Thursday Jan 17 2008) tags: business · AT&T DSL ServiceTim Wu thinks that AT&T has lost its mind for their plan to employ network filters that will identify and flag pirated material being transmitted over their network. We've commented at length about how this is a very dangerous move for the company, as investors may not like the cost, p2ps users & pirates (who are paying customers even if you don't agree with their actions) will migrate to other ISPs, and regular users won't like it if the system flags false positives. Wu calls the decision "corporate seppuku": No one knows exactly what AT&T is proposing to build. But if the company means what it says, we're looking at the beginnings of a private police state. That may sound like hyperbole, but what else do you call a system designed to monitor millions of people's Internet consumption? That's not just Orwellian; that's Orwell. Wu suggests that AT&T's biggest problem may be legal liability. Once AT&T starts blocking pirated traffic, they're potentially invalidating a 1998 immunity law they themselves lobbied to pass. That law currently shields them from copyright infringement, but to maintain that immunity, AT&T must transmit data "without selection of the material by the service provider" and "without modification of its content."Of course AT&T's lawyers and lobbyists are a pretty smart, creative and well-funded bunch, so we're sure they'll find (or create) some way around being held liable.
Related:- AT&T Still Predicts 2010 Internet Demise
- AT&T Layoffs Intended to Grow Broadband Biz
- AT&T Developing New Web Browser
- AT&T To Vuze: We Don't Throttle BitTorrent
- AT&T Ending Dish Network Partnership at Year-End
- Verizon, AT&T Offer New DSL Promotions
- AT&T Partners with DirecTV
- AT&T Versus The State Of Connecticut
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
gigahurtz
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | Hmmm.. Just switched back to Bellsouth/AT&T and looks like i'll be switching back again soon. *SIGH* | |
|  | | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Hmmm.. Its a Herculean task. Teenagers don't care about the legal liabilities, and AT&T isn't going to disconnect every customer with teenagers. IF the common carrier laws are enforced, AT&T will no longer be a common carrier, and lose a lot of money to those who "lost" their intellectual property.
I'm expecting they will begin lobbying for new laws once the execs read the newspaper this morning. | |
| | | | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX
| Re: Hmmm.. said by axus  :Teenagers don't care about the legal liabilities, and AT&T isn't going to disconnect every customer with teenagers. I hate to say this, but I believe that your comment unfairly targets teenagers as the only ones that pirate content. Surprisingly in the ISP field, especially if you have contact with some of your heavier users, you find it's not teenagers. It's the adults that try to be quiet, yet still are the #1 downloaders of pirated content. My number 1 downloader for the past 2 years (always the same person) is nearing 40 years old, is single, and is a male. My number 2, 3, and 4 downloaders, while married, are also near the same age, and the male is the primary user.
I guess I just keep track of my users too much, but it's still an actual fact. Sure, my #5 heaviest user is actually a teenager, but look at those numbers and tell me again that it's the teenagers pirating the content... At least #8 is a 55 year old IT administrator for a school district that I have called about her downloading numerous TV shows and MediaDefender was always contacting us to get her turned off. | |
| | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Hmmm.. said by axus :...I guess I just keep track of my users too much, but it's still an actual fact... Why are YOU tracking your users in the first place? Are you a voyeur, a tool, a professional informant, or just a twit? What difference does it make to YOU what is transfered over the connection/pipe that you provide for a fee. YOU HAVE NO LIABILITY for content transmitted across your servers, unless you are in the habit of ignoring DMCA take-down notices when presented. Inform your users of any notices received, and let them deal with it. Otherwise, it's none of YOUR BUSINESS! Just as it's none of your business what your users search for, or send, over their "paid-for" internet connection. Quit snooping! YOUR FUNCTION is to keep the connection up and functioning properly, and that is all! | |
| | | | | | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | Re: Hmmm.. I also find his comments EXTREMELY CREEPY. I hope he presented his own comments out of context. | |
| | | | | | | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX | Re: Hmmm.. I would recommend reading my reply back to the last comment on this, because it clearly lays out several facts of the ISP business. | |
| | | | | | | |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: Hmmm.. You lay out no facts. The only thing you NEED to know as an ISP is how many gb a user is using per month, and if you are able to continue to provide your service and still make money.
If your users are complaining about slowdowns then what does it matter if the traffic being used is p2p or grannies email, you should just split your available bandwidth equally, provide more bandwidth, or leave being an ISP to the big boys. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium
join:2005-01-16
Spokane, WA
·WebBand
1 edit | Re: Hmmm.. Well, not exactly.
CALEA
»www.eff.org/issues/calea
Hang around the chans...and wait for the party van.
Guilt by URL...you think a court of white-bread average Americans is going to think positivly if a user so much as was recorded visiting a site like 4chan or Rotten? Most people I know would throw away the key after spending 20 seconds there.
Granted they do push..but it's not illegal.
If I hang around neworder, does that make me an evil hacker, or just someone interested in security?
You really think the average jury would care?
ISP's have to cover their asses too ya know. I know I do.
-CaFF | |
| | | | | | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX
| Umm... sir... I will have you know that for an ISP to continue growing and knowing what kind of traffic they have running across their network, they DO monitor the network. If I put in a T1 and ran all of my customers off it with no monitoring, I'd really like to know how many customers I would have.
At the same time I have to know about router capacities, cpu loads, and everything else. What better way to understand that than to see what protocols are in use. It's not like it's actually seeing what URLs are being pulled, what files are being downloaded, or anything else.
So now are you saying that it's ill-mannered to MRTG each individual customer's connection device? You would be shocked how many people are dumb enough to call about something as stupid as "my internet is slow!" while paying for 3mbps service and are using their full 3mbps service while running the speed test in the background.
If you were running a provider, I would LOVE to know how you would go about managing it. Especially if you were working for the likes of AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, or anybody else using accounting-based authentication systems such as DHCP or PPPoE authentication. Don't you think they know who their heavy users are? I just have a closer relationship with my customers because I am part of a smaller organization. I can go into my accounting system and pull a report for the past 30/60/90/120/365 days and see my top users by transfer for the time frame just like all other providers can.
So without being educated on how to run an ISP, please tell me, how would you do it? | |
| | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Hmmm.. said by rantou :Umm... sir... At the same time I have to know about router capacities, cpu loads, and everything else. What better way to understand that than to see what protocols are in use. It's not like it's actually seeing what URLs are being pulled, what files are being downloaded, or anything else... Your involvement with the subscribers use of their connections should be as distant and as impersonal as possible. Identifying aggregate traffic/protocal use is one thing, specific user identification according to protocol, along with specific content transferred, is quite another. You have identified specific users as PIRATES based on your surveillance of their IP/URL history and transmitted content. Not quite the altruistic manager you portray yourself to be.
Impersonal management of of network hardware and performance does not require detailed investigation of the content and surfing history of any individual subscriber, except in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. Routine, specific, invasive surveillance and content analysis in violation of the privacy rights of your users is not unavoidable and inevitable. | |
| | | | | | | | rantou
join:2002-06-04
Richardson, TX
| Re: Hmmm.. Find me one ISP billing software that you search an IP address and it doesn't come back with a name. Go ahead! See if you can find one. That's just the whole problem. So it's unethical then to search out who a person is by the traffic coming from their IP address?
I never said anything about looking at URL history. I look at their traffic based solely on protocol and amount of traffic passed, which every ISP has to do these days. If you want to see an ISP that does have relational data between URL history and who you are, look at AT&T, Verizon, and the many others that sell your clickstream data. Sure, they're not selling the clickstream data with any kind of end user identification, but you know that they have that relational data in their systems, whether you like it or not. I don't even sell clickstream data, nor have systems that would ever cache that information.
The fact that I even know my customers is because, again, I work at a smaller provider where I do speak with my customers when they call in for technical assistance and I grab their calls, or because I even did their installations for them. I have tried to distance myself from customers by trying other methods with limited good results (bad contractors, bad language skills, etc.) and the bottom line is that if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. | |
| | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Hmmm.. said by rantou :Find me one ISP billing software that you search an IP address and it doesn't come back with a name. Go ahead! See if you can find one. That's just the whole problem. So it's unethical then to search out who a person is by the traffic coming from their IP address? Depends on why/what use you intend to make of that knowledge.
I never said anything about looking at URL history. I look at their traffic based solely on protocol and amount of traffic passed, which every ISP has to do these days. However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption.
If you want to see an ISP that does have relational data between URL history and who you are, look at AT&T, Verizon, and the many others that sell your clickstream data. That's what we were looking at in this thread; the unscrupulous activities of the major Telcos and Cablecos acting on behalf of out-of-control national security organizations, corporate intellectual property owners and their own desire to become the controlling portal monetizer/monitor/provider for/of all on-line content.
Sure, they're not selling the clickstream data with any kind of end user identification, but you know that they have that relational data in their systems, whether you like it or not. What makes you so sure that they don't, or, as importantly, they won't, in conjunction with the content filtering activities on behalf of intellectual property owners (read R.I.A.A., M.P.A.A., I.F.P.I.)?
I don't even sell clickstream data, nor have systems that would ever cache that information. For this, I applaud you!
The fact that I even know my customers is because, again, I work at a smaller provider where I do speak with my customers when they call in for technical assistance and I grab their calls, or because I even did their installations for them. I have tried to distance myself from customers by trying other methods with limited good results (bad contractors, bad language skills, etc.) and the bottom line is that if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself. I hope you are speaking of set-up, troubleshooting equipment, maintenance of network resources and customer relations, rather than of spying on your customers.
Do/would you agree that surveillance, content filtering, protocol throttling, DNS redirection, and the monitoring, collection and sale of clickstream data are inherently invasive practices detrimental to subscribers when they become the tools of aggressive, and oppressive, factional third party interests? | |
| | | | | | | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Hmmm.. said by ross :However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption. Or perhaps to have been called/written by content owners about the user's infringement?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Hmmm.. said by wierdo :said by ross :However, you identified certain of your users as intellectual property pirates. If you merely meant to say some percentage of an aggregate pool of users utilizing P2P protocols fell into certain demographic groups, that is quite different from identifying specific individual users as intellectual property pirates. The latter requires you to have inspected unencrypted packets to determine content, or to have made a stupendously egregious presumption. Or perhaps to have been called/written by content owners about the user's infringement? Sorry wierdo, but that is extremely unlikely. In fact, it would be more likely that he made the whole thing up, rather than have been notified by content providers. | |
| | | | | | | | | muiredised
ESSE QUAM VIDERI
join:2007-06-11
Tacoma, WA
·Vonage
| said by rantou :Find me one ISP billing software that you search an IP address and it doesn't come back with a name. Go ahead! See if you can find one. That's just the whole problem. So it's unethical then to search out who a person is by the traffic coming from their IP address? If I understand it correctly the billing software may return a name of the "account holder", and that does NOT identify the person "using the connection". By personalizing your statements regarding the users with gender and age you are making suppositions that may or may not be accurate. How do you KNOW that the primary user is male? Even if you survey the users directly and they volunteer the information, that still does not mean it is accurate. What if the wife is said to be the primary user but the husband is concealing a pornography addiction?
Manage your network, analyze your network traffic, but DO NOT make suppositions about the "users". What you KNOW is your top bandwidth consuming "account", anything more specific regarding "user" is a supposition on your part unless you are a voyeur and watch them as they use the connection.
--
Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit | |
| | | | | | |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by rantou :So without being educated on how to run an ISP, please tell me, how would you do it? Two words: Dumb Pipe.
Seriously, it's none of your business if your client uses their connection to browse disney.com all day or downloads huge linux distros every day for no apparent reason. The only thing you should be keeping track of is:
"User A is using X GB/month, I can/cannot continue to provide this amount of bandwidth to them and still make money" Anything more is none of your business, furthermore you're discussing such things in a freaking public forum, how would you like it if your doctor went around talking about the disgusting genital warts you came in with the other day, while not mentioning your name but giving your age and occupation. | |
| | | | | | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| If you are examining content you best be very careful about how you are doing it and for what reason. Based on your statements alone, in the right/wrong court (depending on whose opinion), you could be brought up on wire tap charges. Doing it to average people you probably won't be, but let me tell you if an "official" finds out you are doing it to them (such as a congressman) you will be brought up on federal wire tap charges. There's network management, and there is wire tapping. There is a fine line between the two and considering the jail time you are risking (20 year max sentence) if I was you, I would talk to a lawyer experienced in wire tap laws before I would be examining one bit of data for content.
There's a reason ATT and Verizion want Immunity for the illegal wiretaps they did for the Feds. You might take heed of their example. | |
| | | | | justgold79
join:2008-01-13
2 edits | The secret to staying under the radar when at a new isp (if you get kicked off) is to gradually raise your up/down rates starting at a small rate, preferably under 10KBps so you'll get lost in the noise, then over time gradually keep raising your p2p programs throttle. At least that's what I've heard.
And for the paranoid surfer you can use TOR, and your isp can only see that your using it, and not any of your packets' destinations. | |
| | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| said by Nightfall :said by gigahurtz :Just switched back to Bellsouth/AT&T and looks like i'll be switching back again soon. *SIGH* Switching back to what? Comcast is doing it now, and AT&T is following suit. Its just a matter of time until all ISPs really start putting the hammer down on pirated material. What? Comcast is filtering copyrighted and pirated content from their network?
Uhm, BULLSHIT!
Sandvine is killing seeding of ANYTHING and is only applied to the BT protocol.
I can download anything I wish.
I can upload anything... WTF are you trying to say?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: Hmmm.. said by dadkins :said by Nightfall :said by gigahurtz :Just switched back to Bellsouth/AT&T and looks like i'll be switching back again soon. *SIGH* Switching back to what? Comcast is doing it now, and AT&T is following suit. Its just a matter of time until all ISPs really start putting the hammer down on pirated material. What? Comcast is filtering copyrighted and pirated content from their network? Uhm, BULLSHIT! Sandvine is killing seeding of ANYTHING and is only applied to the BT protocol. I can download anything I wish. I can upload anything... WTF are you trying to say? I think you just contradicted yourself. Sandvine is killing off all BT, but you can download and upload anything you want?
As for what I wanted to say, you just said it.  | |
| | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Hmmm.. No.
I do not use BT, and I can upload or download anything I want.
Saying that Comcast is filtering copyrighted or pirated content from their network is wrong.
I use DDL services and "things" download fine!
I occasionally store "things" on a server across the nation and uploading works fine.
Comcast is *NOT* filtering content. They are forging Stop packets and killing seeding on BT with Sandvine.
BTW, downloading via BT still works - all file types.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: Hmmm.. said by dadkins :No. I do not use BT, and I can upload or download anything I want. Saying that Comcast is filtering copyrighted or pirated content from their network is wrong. I use DDL services and "things" download fine! I occasionally store "things" on a server across the nation and uploading works fine. Comcast is *NOT* filtering content. They are forging Stop packets and killing seeding on BT with Sandvine. BTW, downloading via BT still works - all file types. Albeit the downloading is slower and the uploads are gimped to hell. Still, there is no filtering going on here! /sarcasm
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
tnroroc
Let's Rock
join:2001-04-25
Matawan, NJ
| How would they be able to distinguish between pirated and legal heavy usage?
I have just started to watch the Lost series from the first season from the ABC web site (streamed).
--
rok - Enjoy this game called life, nobody is actually keeping score. | |
| | | |
caffeinator
Coming soon to a cup near you..
Premium
join:2005-01-16
Spokane, WA | Re: Hmmm.. That's calling killing two birds with one stick. | |
| | | | 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | just switched myself to att i hope this doesn't go through. I just want a dumb pipe to the internet.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
| mrgreenjeans
join:2007-01-17
Gainesville, FL | Not good.... looks like I am in the market for a switch as well. | |
| | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: Not good.... but if the alternative is price gouging like one of the previous topics, then what.
Time to unplug!
--
Let's pluck 'im and see if he's ripe!"
- Larry (MEN IN BLACK, 1934) | |
| | | 
MrMoody
Liberal Capitalist
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| Re: Not good.... Ha, there are people less than 5 miles from me whose only choices are AT&T and RoadRunner. I'm seriously glad I don't live there.
Although seriously, I don't think these "filters" are going to really do much. What it will be is, certain new content will be (is) "watermarked" and the AT&T filters will look for the watermarking - that's it.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| 
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
| immunity Of course AT&T's lawyers and lobbyists are a pretty smart and well-funded bunch, so we're sure they'll find (or create) some way around being held liable.
They can always get Bush to sign an Executive Order giving the corporation and all its officers and board members blanket immunity for anything, including traffic violations and parking tickets, treason, espionage, perjury, etc.  | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: immunity Yup - along with the NSA eavesdropping charges. AT&T has some powerful lobbiests/allies in the current administration.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by fuziwuzi :They can always get Bush to sign an Executive Order giving the corporation and all its officers and board members blanket immunity for anything, including traffic violations and parking tickets, treason, espionage, perjury, etc. I wonder why HASN'T that executive order been signed yet? | |
| 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Maybe AT&T.... Should just STFU and just try to be the best dumb pipe that they can be. | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Maybe AT&T.... Being a corporate giant like AT&T means attempting to have your cake and eat it too wherever possible.
If they can't do it legally, then they have the lobbyists which will 'help' the government see their way.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| said by jjoshua :Should just STFU and just try to be the best dumb pipe that they can be. I second, and applaud that thought! | |
| 
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | NSA Hey, at least those NSA monitors will be put to "good" use. Maybe Hollywood will be paying for all of it. | |
| 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Ain't gonna work. I don't see how this is going to work right, I bet it flags normal data, but then what happens to it once it gets flag?
Its just to complex to try to have a "program" pick out pirated content and expect it to not grab normal surfing behavior.
I either see this failing all together, or users jumping ship.
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Ain't gonna work. said by ztmike :I either see this failing all together, or users jumping ship. Users won't jump since RIAA/MPAA PR and the Video News Releases on local OTA stations, and ATT teaching users that they can't do piracy will eventually guilt sheep cough cough users out of downloading anything online. Also when it becomes much more difficult, most users will stop downloading. | |
| 
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Newport, OR | WHY? I wonder whom they are pandering too now? I am so glad I do not live in areas that require one to use them for any service!
--
My perception is REALITY | |
| 
change
@verizon.net
 from:
koma3504
| change... just as exploding vrad batteries have proven defective, this plan will blow up in their face. the company & shareholder's will pay dearly for; the further they head down the road of poor decisions...
broadband consumers can be a fickle bunch when they want (or need) to be... they'll vote with their dollars!
consumers will see the roadblocks and do a u-turn
when consumers try the service they'll be in for a rUde awakening... put a line across the top of the U and U have a walled garden. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: change... What do you do when Cable is your only choice, or ATT? | |
| 
Kfedka
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA | Pick me! Who wants AT&T to, ooooh ooooh me!! | |
| neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA | why? I'm sorry byt WHY does DSLReports keep showing the AT&T logo with words written in Arabic? seriously what does that have to do with AT&T? | |
| |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: why? I think the analogy is that AT&T is acting like the Taliban...and in this case, theres alot of truth to it. The ISP has no right to police the Internet. They are, in fact, paid to allow access to the World Wide Web. They are not supposed to be your parent!
--
Let's pluck 'im and see if he's ripe!"
- Larry (MEN IN BLACK, 1934) | |
| | | rayeger
join:2003-07-05
Warren, OH
| Re: why? You are right, they should not have to police the internet, but with the way the RIAA is, soon the ISPs will become liable for the pirated material that is being shared on their network. This is just AT&T trying to think ahead and save the money lost on a lawsuit, even if this does not work, they can say they are trying to block pirating..... | |
| | SKYWARP
join:2005-02-02
Portland, OR | Seriously? It's fine to be offended by it, but it's pretty simple the statement that they are trying to make.
AT&T is acting like a censoring Arabic country. | |
| | | | | | | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
1 edit | It's cheaper than upgrading They show a lack of vision for the future, even though it's smacking them in the face.
Most people are already getting tired of police state paranoia and nanny state restrictions and no amount of lobbying or buying politicians is going to change that.
The future is BIG pipes delivering content as fast as a powered fire hose.
Filtering will allow them to keep their capacity higher without having to invest in added equipment and lines.
While they waste their money on VDSL and filtering staying in the slow boat internet, others are flying the jet plane broadband. They really will be the Slowski's of the US.
Maybe they are counting on their regional territory's to keep them afloat forever. That would be a mistake, they need to remember that they serve the public.
This is America! not Nazi Germany or USSR KGB police state.
Quote from Mr. Wu's article:
"Even China's Internet, whose performance suffers greatly from its filtering, doesn't go as far as what AT&T is proposing."
The only things they should be filtering, are Spam and Viruses, which even now, they cannot do 100%.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
| | rayeger
join:2003-07-05
Warren, OH
| Re: It's cheaper than upgrading But China is filtering out what they dont want their people to see, they could care less about piracy(unless it was the governement they were stealing from) In this case, they are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits and the hassle of dealing with the RIAA.
Im sick of hearing about people complaining about what China does, they are a communist government, they want to control what goes on there, its their way, not ours, quit complaning!!!!
About the comment about police state and KGB, Maybe I missed where this filtering has anything to do with out government? This is a public company doing this, if you dont like what they are doing, dont give that company any of your money. | |
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: It's cheaper than upgrading said by rayeger :But China is filtering out what they dont want their people to see, they could care less about piracy(unless it was the governement they were stealing from) In this case, they are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits and the hassle of dealing with the RIAA. Im sick of hearing about people complaining about what China does, they are a communist government, they want to control what goes on there, its their way, not ours, quit complaning!!!! About the comment about police state and KGB, Maybe I missed where this filtering has anything to do with out government? This is a public company doing this, if you dont like what they are doing, dont give that company any of your money. This has to be approved by the government before they can do that, and laws have to be changed.
I don't think it's a co-incidence that AT&T and the US top spy want the same thing and that both are testing the waters of the public to see if they can get support for it.
It makes me wonder who the real author of both policy's is.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
Disconnect
@bellsouth.net
| No alternative here I have no alternative provider available to me. If they pull this I will simply disconnect all my services that I have with them... (pots, dsl, cell phones).
Unfortunately I would be cell phone only for a while. At least until Wi max or another alternative becomes available. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: No alternative here You have ATT DSL but no Cable? HUH? I can understand ATT POTS with no Cable, but if the telco puts DSL in the area, it means its profitable enough for a Cable company, what gives? | |
| | |
cicad
@verizon.net | Re: No alternative here I have DSL but no cable, also. Simply because there are 'not enough houses' to justify cable, but the Gamesa company just down the road forced a DSL node when they were constructing their factory. | |
| m60521
join:2001-12-28
Hinsdale, IL
·Comcast
| This is your government at work I believe this is not AT&T's idea. This is the plan that your government has to monitor ALL traffic on the Internet. This is domestic spying. They don't care about copyright law. They want to know everything you are doing and saying. Copyright monitoring is only an ancillary capability of the hardware that has already been put in place to spy on you.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···too.html
Why else would your government have allowed Ma Bell to regroup after splitting them into the Baby Bells in 1983?
We need to enforce out Constitution!!! | |
| MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Hate to burst your balloon Tim Wu and DSL Reports Just a quick read of the 1998 immunity law makes it clear that "without selection of the material" and "without modification of content" is intended to provide immunity for user-generated content as opposed to ISP-generated content. In other words, the ISP doesn't select material or modify content to create a new artifact, it just makes what the user created available over the network.
Simply *blocking* undesirable content would not fall under selection or modification. Tim Wu is frothing hyberbolic because he is so against network filters.
Using Tim Wu's argument, closing an AT&T-network-hosted child porn website would violate the 1998 law.
This post by DSL Reports is really bad journalism. It's like the one a week or so ago that said "The RIAA says ripping CDs to your MP3 player is illegal!" Well, no, they didn't.
You are letting your biases influence your reporting.
And the hordes of "Yeah! AT&T Sucks! Kill Them" idiots will follow you right down the path.
Hey -- it may WELL BE a stupid move by AT&T. But this "it's illegal" is a complete red herring. | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: Hate to burst your balloon Tim Wu and DSL Reports The Common Carrier status is basically a legal shield that recognizes that the dumb pipe provider can't filter out everything so they're not liable for anything. It's the same concept that keeps Verizon from being liable if two criminals use Verizon cell phones to plot a robbery.
What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail.
If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them.
It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
| | | 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
| Re: Hate to burst your balloon Tim Wu and DSL Reports said by Jason Levine :It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. I think the only reason they aren't is because they have the same problem the RIAA lawyers do: they are old, old-fashioned lawyers that simply don't grasp all the concepts of today's technology. AT&T and the RIAA's lawyers are not network admins, plain and simple. They're a bunch of old farts that went to law school in the 60's, 70's, and maybe the 80's, before there even was an internet.
All IMHO, of course. | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Hate to burst your balloon Tim Wu and DSL Reports said by PolarBear :said by Jason Levine :It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. I think the only reason they aren't is because they have the same problem the RIAA lawyers do: they are old, old-fashioned lawyers that simply don't grasp all the concepts of today's technology. AT&T and the RIAA's lawyers are not network admins, plain and simple. They're a bunch of old farts that went to law school in the 60's, 70's, and maybe the 80's, before there even was an internet. All IMHO, of course. NO, they are not! The one of the hottest legal specialties among law school grads these days is intellectual property law. These sharklets can smell blood in the water with unerring, and ruthless efficiency. I liken them to real estate foreclosure vultures specialists, and corporate raiders arbitrageurs for compassionate ethicism. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by Jason Levine :What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail. If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them. It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it. Nope, they will have congress, or a judge provide an interpretation saying only "industry representive bodies" can sue ISPs for failures in filtering, same way we can't sue spammers, only ISPs. | |
| | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Jason Levine :The Common Carrier status is basically a legal shield that recognizes that the dumb pipe provider can't filter out everything so they're not liable for anything. It's the same concept that keeps Verizon from being liable if two criminals use Verizon cell phones to plot a robbery. Correct. That is what it says. But Tim Wu asserts that blocking illegal content breaks that law. I think that's specious at best.
quote:
What AT&T is going to do, however, is put systems in place to stop copyright violations. Now, we all know that these systems won't be fool proof. You can't possibly stop all violations. (This post, for example, is copyrighted. Will AT&T stop it if this post appears, completely intact, on a blog?) However, by making the effort, they lose their Common Carrier status
You are simply asserting that they lose their Common Carrier status without anything to back that up. See my original post for my view of that. I think it's a complete stretch which would not stand up to any reasonable scrutiny by a judge. It's just an anti-AT&T bigot fulminating.
quote:
and open themselves up to litigation when their filters fail.
If I find out that a user on AT&T downloaded a work of mine without properly paying for it (assuming I wasn't giving it away for free), I might now be able to sue AT&T for aiding the pirates. Same if that person was sharing the work on a P2P group and AT&T didn't stop them.
It's opening a huge legal liability. I'm surprised that their lawyers aren't going into seizures just thinking about it.
This is going off on a completely different tangent. The original article says nothing about this. And, I think your argument doesn't hold a single drop of water. Unless AT&T makes some warranty that they will stop all copyrighted material from being transmitted (which of course they won't do), you don't have any grounds to win a lawsuit. In fact they would do exactly the opposite -- in their terms and conditions they would specifically state they do NOT protect users from anything. | |
| | |
MrMoody
Liberal Capitalist
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: The Interstate Is At Fault! Well, obviously we need to search every vehicle that goes onto the interstate!
This may seem ridiculous but to me it's just scary.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| said by exocet_cm :For allowing drug smugglers to pass on their roads. We should hold Congress and our state Legislators liable for allowing roads to be built that facilitate the passing of illegal narcotics! Same concept, you can't hold the ISP hostage as they just provide the end-user access to the network. We have state police patrolling those roads for users transporting illegal goods and also breaking other laws. An ISP would merely be enforcing the laws on their roads as well.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | 
Matt
Quitting Caffeine - Argh
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: The Interstate Is At Fault! said by LiamJunket :said by exocet_cm :For allowing drug smugglers to pass on their roads. We should hold Congress and our state Legislators liable for allowing roads to be built that facilitate the passing of illegal narcotics! Same concept, you can't hold the ISP hostage as they just provide the end-user access to the network. We have state police patrolling those roads for users transporting illegal goods and also breaking other laws. An ISP would merely be enforcing the laws on their roads as well. So create a federally funded agency to monitor the internet then.
The Department of Transportation doesn't hand out traffic tickets for speeding ... so why should the ISPs be the enforcers? | |
| | |
Nope
@tds.net
| said by LiamJunket :said by exocet_cm :For allowing drug smugglers to pass on their roads. We should hold Congress and our state Legislators liable for allowing roads to be built that facilitate the passing of illegal narcotics! Same concept, you can't hold the ISP hostage as they just provide the end-user access to the network. We have state police patrolling those roads for users transporting illegal goods and also breaking other laws. An ISP would merely be enforcing the laws on their roads as well. The ISP is not the government. However, they're the people who built and maintain the road. They hold no power over the people. That's a big difference! | |
| |
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
Riverside, WA
·CableOne
| said by exocet_cm :For allowing drug smugglers to pass on their roads. We should hold Congress and our state Legislators liable for allowing roads to be built that facilitate the passing of illegal narcotics! Same concept, you can't hold the ISP hostage as they just provide the end-user access to the network. I think you have a very valid point there, you just have to remember to compare apples to apples.
See, TK Junk Mail said:
We have state police patrolling those roads for users transporting illegal goods and also breaking other laws. An ISP would merely be enforcing the laws on their roads as well. And I think he's slightly wrong; See, the DOT (through contractors) builds and owns the roads. But the police enforce the laws. As such, AT&T built their network and they own it, but they are not a policing agency. AT&T policing their own network is akin to the DOT handing out traffic tickets.
MattE said:So create a federally funded agency to monitor the internet then.
The Department of Transportation doesn't hand out traffic tickets for speeding ... so why should the ISPs be the enforcers? And he has a very good point. If we (or AT&T for that matter) want to curb illegal activity on the internet, we need to create a police agency for it, just like we have state police for the highways. We don't let the construction company that built the roads or the DOT hand out traffic tickets, why should we let AT&T enforce file trading laws?
Also, if the RIAA (and AT&T) think that illegal file trading is such a problem, they should lobby the government to create the above-mentioned agency, instead of suing people. If someone breaks into my house and steals my TV, I don't sue them for 100 times the price of the TV, I call the police. Likewise, the RIAA should be reporting these supposed crimes to the police instead of filing frivolous lawsuits.
Oh crap, I just realized there IS a police agency responsible for handling illegal file trading/copyright infringement: The Federal Bureau of Idiots!
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. | |
| ccb056
join:2002-04-05
West Lafayette, IN | Encryption And what exactly will this do to torrents with the transfers encrypted? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Time Warner Cable
·Cox HSI
| I already declined Uverse AT&T is already losing $. I seriously considered Uverse. The price & service looks great.
Then I heard the filter rumors on BBR and decided to stick with TW. I don't want the hassle of getting flagged with a false positive.
Besides, the filter is going to negatively impact network performance.
Maybe AT&T is hoping they can design the filter product, then lobby the legislature to ensure that every other provider has to buy their 'product'. | |
|
mbucci
@rr.com
from:
spanglo
ross
|  "Lockdown"!
| |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: "Lockdown"! said by mbucci :
Enough is enough, but it won't stop things. Since our President in league with our Corporate America, spy institutions, compliant Congress and now ISPs are on the same team there are no reasons to think that freedom on the internet is any more of a "right" than rights we lost to them in our daily lives over the past seven years. This is a VERY SERIOUS situation indeed. While the words "Orwell" and "Orwellian" have lost their potential to incite alarm, perhaps we should reinvent Mr. Ray Bradbury's model for showing us how to cope with what clearly is a growing fascism using the tools of technology in a totalitarian manner. No, I will not hide my books. No, I will not hide my opinions, thoughts and ideas. No, I will not enable these forces by censoring myself in a public venue (the internet). No, I will not be a Fahrenheit 451 person! But if the penalties for doing such make it necessary, then it IS time to "pull the plug" from the monster network or be a victim of "lockdown" - from censorship and self-censorship, from McCarthyism, from freedom-burners. All it takes is to pull the ethernet plug and turn off the wireless adapter and say goodbye to that which was once the internet but is no more. Truly, that is a choice many of us are considering, and it is very sad but real.
Maybe its time to create a clandestine global internet through DXing. Will require participation of "free" countries. Although if none are left, time to steal a nuclear bomb, blow it up, blame USA, then present yourself/your party as saviours from American Terrorists and Fascists and heard the sheep (Book of Bush 7:14).  | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16 | Re: "Lockdown"! No one hears the sheep, but some do herd them... | |
| | | | |
|
|
·