dslreports logo
 story category
Will AT&T Filter Discussion Of Their Filters?
Boing Boing gadget blogger questions practice on AT&T-produced show
Boing Boing's Gadgets editor Joel Johnson was asked to appear on The Hugh Thompson Show, an AT&T-produced program that airs on the AT&T Tech Channel. Johnson was obviously supposed to speak about gadgets, but instead used his allotted time questioning AT&T's plans to implement piracy filters across their network, which the show's producers apparently didn't appreciate.
quote:
Click for full size
As you can see from the video, the crew ended up scrubbing the interview about half-way through. Figuring that might happen, I asked my steely-nerved friend Richard Blakeley to tape the first take. I wanted to make sure that we had a record of the event, primarily to ensure that AT&T would have no reason to try to bury the interview entirely—the same reason I am running this clip now, while discussion about what to do with my segment in post-production is surely underway.
In a second take gadgets are discussed, but network neutrality and AT&T's relationship with the NSA become fodder for conversation.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL

flycuban

Member

Wow

The only thing i can say is........dammm....and LOL
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

3 edits

1 recommendation

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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.
kherr
Premium Member
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL

kherr

Premium Member

Re: Wow

You mention false positives ...... what happens when there is a false negative and copyrighted material gets threw ????
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN

RJ44 to jc10098

Member

to jc10098
said by jc10098:

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

gefflong

Member

Re: Wow

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

3 edits

1 recommendation

jc10098 to RJ44

Member

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

swa

Anon

Re: Wow

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

1 edit

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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.

NetMan
@bellsouth.net

NetMan to swa

Anon

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

Yep. That too.
krew
join:2007-10-31
Crete, IL
Motorola MB8600
Asus RT-AC5300

krew to jc10098

Member

to jc10098
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?

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to jc10098

MVM

to jc10098
said by jc10098:

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

1 edit

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

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...
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

Words speak louder than actions.
You actually got that one backwards.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

If that's all you can come back with for your retort, then I consider my point proven. As for your demeanor, you have successfully given credence to my post. You would be the type to vote based upon rhetoric instead of real issues. I mean, who really cares about grammar to the extent that they make it the centerpiece of their reply? Obviously, it seems to be your top priority, as a means to sway this debate. Hence, I'll bring it back to topic. So what's your reply? We're all awaiting it.

P.S. It's late, and I've had a long day. Sometimes the mind tells you to type and your fingers do the opposite.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

P.S. It's late, and I've had a long day. Sometimes the mind tells you to type and your fingers do the opposite.
Which is why my retort was so short...too late, and too foggy to go point by point...
NormanS

NormanS to jc10098

MVM

to jc10098
ATT_PrivacyP···elta.txt
11,062 bytes
AT&T notice of change in the Privacy Policy; emailed to customers.
said by jc10098:

Don't NEED AN LLB to show proof of ignorance.
Ad hominem, eh? Can't you do better than that?
I mean come on, your examples are pretty lousy. If a normal layman can find fault, then any LLB would eat them alive.
Finding "fault" is hardly proof of being right.
As per your LLB, please show me it, too. You have loads of examples, but for once give me proof on the second one taking place. O wait, you just got examples which fall outside the realm of the argument and the second one holds no water. Got ya.
If you mean that we are just a couple of barroom barristers duking it out, I guess you did that.
Yes, but those who DID NOT sign a new one are grandfathered in. ATT would have to notify ALL USERS of an update, spelling out the changes.
They did that. I've got an email from them around here, somewhere...

A couple of links to discussions about the change:

»AT&T Revamps Privacy Policy
»Has anyone tested cancellation because of new privacy policy
I'm sure they didn't write it out clearly their intent to monitor people. Please show me the letter if they did t hat says we will be mining your network traffic and that of other isps.
Ah. Here it is...

{Uploaded as a .txt file. You can change the extension to .eml, and it will open in a mail client.}

And what makes you think that they will monitor the traffic of other ISPs? Aside from the NSA issue, which pre-dates the SBC purchase of AT&T...hmmm. Maybe a little history.

Prior to January 1, 2006, AT&T and SBC were separate companies. A former AT&T employee mentioned that, in 2004, he was part of a project to feed a mirror port to a special room which only NSA personnel could access. In an AT&T facility in San Francisco. At that time AT&T was a long distance telephone carrier, CLEC (reselling Covad DSL service), and Tier 1 Internet transit carrier. SBC was an ILEC and ISP.

AT&T operated the "AT&T Worldnet Services" transit network. I presume it is that network which the NSA was (and probably still is) monitoring.

SBC operated the "SBC Internet Services" transit network, which carried their DSL customer traffic from the premises to the Internet. The SBC AUP/TOS (and Privacy Policy) would only have applied to traffic on the SBCIS network.

Subsequent to January 1, 2006, SBC took over AT&T, and changed some names. "SBC" became "AT&T Corp.", and the "SBC Internet Services" (SBCIS) became the "AT&T Internet Services" (ATTIS). The "AT&T Worldnet Services" (ATTW) were not changed.

At this time, 100% of the IP traffic of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers is carried on the ATTIS transit network. This is covered by the AT&T AUP/TOS (and Privacy Policy). 0% of the IP traffic of other ISPs (Comcast, Cox, Charter, Verizon, et. al.) is carried on ATTIS transit.

OTOH, only about 3 in 10 of my trace routes is carried on ATTW transit (AT&T Worldnet Services). Much of the rest is not carried on any of the 9 Tier 1 transit networks (IP traffic to Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft goes direct from ATTIS to those respective destinations).

WRT to NSA spying, we have no proof that the NSA isn't monitoring the traffic on other transit networks.

WRT to AT&T monitoring of IP traffic for enforcing anti-piracy measures, with only 30% of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' IP traffic carried on the ATTW transit network, odds are that they will not waste money putting those measures in effect on the ATTW transit network. Since that network carries IP traffic for many other ISPs, I don't see other ISP traffic being monitored by AT&T.

OTOH, this anti-piracy monitoring is intended to mitigate pirated content going to, and from, 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers, I expect that any monitoring equipment will be placed on the ATTIS transit network, because that handles 100% of 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customer traffic. However, that carries no IP traffic of other ISPs, except as those ISP are endpoints for connections between their customers and 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers.

So, if you don't like the AT&T policy, and you don't agree to it, just don't communicate with 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' customers. Probably stay away from 'AT&T FastAccess' (former Bellsouth) and 'AT&T Worldnet Service' (DSL and Dial) customers, as well.
Also, as per above, OTHER ISPS that have their traffic are effected. Hence, what about people WHO DON'T use ATT, NEVER CONSENTED, and now have their traffic picked? O DAMN, I think you just fell down your slippery slope and don't have a rope back up to answer that one?
Only if AT&T is going to monitor the ATTW transit network; but if they do that, they will miss 70% of the traffic of their 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' users, and I can't begin to estimate what percentage of their 'AT&T FastAccess' and 'AT&T Worldnet' customers. The kind of monitoring in question would be most effective on the transit network carrying traffic from the customer premises to the edge of the respective AT&T ISP networks; it would be wasted on the AT&T Worldnet Services transit network.
As per the Constitution, it can still apply depending on how the data is used. Prove me otherwise.
When has the U.S. Constitution been applied in civil disputes between non-government parties?

At this point I have to say that your style of quoting is a royal pain to deal with. You failed to attribute my comments in a manner which makes interspersed commentary work out. I.e., you fail to indicate that I said:
quote:
Do you really think I am using those examples by way of justification? You are so wrong. I used them as examples of a "slippery slope" we have been on since day one. Somehow, we have managed to survive, despite those stupidities

In a way which makes it possible to contextualize my response in a rational manner.
Yes, I do. You seem to be finding every way to show support for these stupidities. I sincerely doubt this is a devil's advocate tone. Therefore, it's safe to assume you are a willing participant. Why else would you want to support such erosions of our freedoms? Just because we've survived it in the past, doesn't mean we'll continue to persevere. It's like a mountain. You can blast it only so many times before an avalanche occurs.
I am not supporting them. I am just noting that we have survived them, somewhat intact. You are just looking for ways to support a preconceived opinion; i.e., prejudiced.
{Damn! And now I have to find a cause for an "unbalanced quote" error. Could you, please, do a proper job of attributing comments, if only to mitigate the headache of trying to respond inline? Thank you.}
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

2 edits

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

Maybe you shouldn't pretend to understand something, when you yourself HAVE NOT READ IT.

We may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process, or to establish or exercise our legal rights or defend against legal claims. For U-verse TV subscribers, if a court order is sought by a non-governmental entity, we are required to notify the subscriber of the court order

As you can see, that's the ONLY mention of the law (»helpme.att.net/article.p ··· tem=8620) and for all intensive purposes, it says they need a court order. I'm assuming this applies to all aspect of their TOS. It's the only one they post and it's the only part where it mentions handing over data. Therefore, they BROKE THEIR OWN AGREEMENT by handing out the information WITHOUT a court order. Obviously, you've taken a tone which has done nothing but justify BAD CONDUCT.

As per ATT monitoring other traffic, whose to say they won't do both? IE then they break the law twice because they are mining information that passes through their pipes but DOESN'T belong to them.

AND this matter has now been successfully concluded, since your own link stuck the nail into the very fabric of your argument.

As the GI JOES said in the 1980s, knowing is half the battle and now that you know YOU'RE wrong, stop acting like you've got some superior high ground here.

P.S. here's their internet service link. »www.att.com/gen/privacy- ··· d=7666#9

Notice how it says we ONLY provide information when permitted by law or required to do so by court order. They WEREN'T permitting by law and had no court order. Hence, they breached it just as I said above for uverse.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

As you can see, that's the ONLY mention of the law (»helpme.att.net/article.p ··· tem=8620) and for all intensive purposes, it says they need a court order.
And this part, you so conveniently omitted?
quote:
We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law.

I'm assuming this applies to all aspect of their TOS. It's the only one they post and it's the only part where it mentions handing over data. Therefore, they BROKE THEIR OWN AGREEMENT by handing out the information WITHOUT a court order. Obviously, you've taken a tone which has done nothing but justify BAD CONDUCT.
Allow me to refresh your memory about what I originally said that started this furball:
quote:
I can understand how wiretapping (allowing the government to listen in without warrants) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. I'd like to know what provision of the U.S. Constitution prohibits filtering copyright protected content.

On top of that, let me remind you that the the handing over of data provably happened under AT&T management prior to January 1, 2006, when AT&T and SBC were still separate entities.

I have never denied that the NSA monitoring is wrong, only that it is separate from the proposed anti-piracy measures the new AT&T (essentially SBC managed) under discussion.
As per ATT monitoring other traffic, whose to say they won't do both? IE then they break the law twice because they are mining information that passes through their pipes but DOESN'T belong to them.
Show me the statute which prohibits blocking certain content. As long as they don't hand over any personal data to the **AA, what laws are being broken?
AND this matter has now been successfully concluded, since your own link stuck the nail into the very fabric of your argument.
Only because of your selective quoting.
As the GI JOES said in the 1980s, knowing is half the battle and now that you know YOU'RE wrong, stop acting like you've got some superior high ground here.
I know no such thing.
P.S. here's their internet service link. »www.att.com/gen/privacy- ··· d=7666#9

Notice how it says we ONLY provide information when permitted by law or required to do so by court order. They WEREN'T permitting by law and had no court order. Hence, they breached it just as I said above for uverse.
Which also states:
quote:
We may, where permitted or required by law, provide personal identifying information to third parties (including credit bureaus or collection agencies) without your consent:

To prevent unlawful use of communications or other services, to assist in repairing network outages, and when a call is made to 911 from a customer phone and information regarding the caller’s location is transmitted to a public safety agency .
To notify a responsible governmental entity if we reasonably believe that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires or justifies disclosure without delay.

And nothing that I have read about their anti-piracy measures indicates that they intend to turn over any customer account information.

To summarize, I have stated:
quote:
I can understand how wiretapping (allowing the government to listen in without warrants) is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This would apply to the NSA spying rooms revealed by a former AT&T (not SBC) employee in 2004. I don't believe that the NSA has that power under the U.S. Constitution. I have never stated otherwise.
quote:
I'd like to know what provision of the U.S. Constitution prohibits filtering copyright protected content.

That issue has not, yet, been adequately addressed.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

1 edit

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

"We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law."

If you read, I summarized that. You obviously don't read. AS PERMITTED OR REQUIRED BY LAW. READ UP, READ TWICE, MY POST STATED THAT. Hence, they WERE

1) NOT PERMITTED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
2) NOT REQUIRED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)

Point made and Proven. Strike 1.

As per prior to Jan, 01 2006 changes hadn't been made to reflect any legal terms or attempt to alleviate themselves of liability. STRIKE 2. IE. Before SBC

"Show me the statute which prohibits blocking certain content. As long as they don't hand over any personal data to the **AA, what laws are being broken?"

Hey batter batter. YOU'RE OUT. It's the fact they'll be filtering usage from other ISPS that's prohibited =). I don't think their customers agreed to that clause. Not to mention, they don't mention they WILL be filtering, which then makes them liable. Find me the clause where they state traffic sent is not guaranteed to reach one's desired destination? I don't happen to see that.

As per whether they turn over the Data is to whether or not the constitution applies for unreasonable search and seizure. I've stated that 50 times now. If they don't then they simply are contending with state and federal laws. The fact they cooperated so eagerly with the NSA wiretapping makes me think that we should expect this data to reach the hands of authorities.

So yes, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. Only, IF ONLY, you could read carefully enough to understand that. Sadly, I doubt this will happen.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

"We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Service Terms or the Acceptable Use Policy, or as otherwise required or permitted by law."

If you read, I summarized that.
Summarized it....where? I did not see any mention of that, only a partial quote of what preceded that.
You obviously don't read. AS PERMITTED OR REQUIRED BY LAW. READ UP, READ TWICE, MY POST STATED THAT. Hence, they WERE

1) NOT PERMITTED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)
2) NOT REQUIRED BY LAW (NO COURT ORDER)

Point made and Proven. Strike 1.
I am not contesting that the NSA monitoring violated anything you covered, ergo, you have proved exactly...nothing.
As per prior to Jan, 01 2006 changes hadn't been made to reflect any legal terms or attempt to alleviate themselves of liability. STRIKE 2. IE. Before SBC
All that I intended was to demonstrate that SBC bought liability. Did I fail to prove that? Sorry. I'll do better next time. BTW, what evidence to you have that the other Tier 1 networks are not cooperating with the NSA? Verizon, which bought the MCI/UUNet Tier 1 network, has joined AT&T in seeking retroactive immunity. Why would they need retroactive immunity if they didn't buy liability with that Tier 1 network. Of the seven remaining Tier 1 networks (such as Level 3, NTT, Sprint, et. al.), only Qwest has categorically denied cooperating with the NSA. Considering that probably 80% of Internet traffic traverses one, or another, of those nine Tier 1 transit networks, what are the odds that none of the others, besides Qwest, aren't cooperating with the NSA?
Hey batter batter. YOU'RE OUT. It's the fact they'll be filtering usage from other ISPS that's prohibited =).
What "fact" would that be? AT&T operates two transit networks. I have seen no evidence that they intend to put filters on the Tier 1 network (AT&T Worldnet Services, a.k.a. "ATTW".

From what I have read about the filters, they intend to apply them to their own customers using the AT&T Internet Services ("ATTIS") transit network. No other ISP traverses ATTIS, except as P2P endpoints between users. If you don't want your traffic to traverse ATTIS transit, you can damned well read the Spamhaus listing of ATTIS dynamic IP addresses, and add them to Peer Guardian. Problem solved.
I don't think their customers agreed to that clause. Not to mention, they don't mention they WILL be filtering, which then makes them liable. Find me the clause where they state traffic sent is not guaranteed to reach one's desired destination? I don't happen to see that.
A Comcast customer's data will only traverse ATTIS if he has a direct P2P connection with an AT&T customer. I currently have a P2P connection with a Comcast customer; 'c-67-177-x-x.hsd1.{state}.comcast.net'. TTBOMK, I have never agreed to the Comcast TOS. So what?
As per whether they turn over the Data is to whether or not the constitution applies for unreasonable search and seizure. I've stated that 50 times now.
Repeating an error 50 times does not change the erroneous nature of the statement. The U.S. Constitution only applies to government, WRT to unreasonable search and seizure.
If they don't then they simply are contending with state and federal laws.
Naturally, those would be the wiretap laws. And if the filters simply block content robotically, without utilizing the data in any other way, we are now in new legal territory. No data is actually checked by human agency, and it is, arguably, being done to manage the network.
The fact they cooperated so eagerly with the NSA wiretapping makes me think that we should expect this data to reach the hands of authorities.
I disagree. I saw nothing in the proposed filter solution to lead one to that conclusion.
So yes, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. Only, IF ONLY, you could read carefully enough to understand that. Sadly, I doubt this will happen.
A one-sided conclusion. But, I guess you are right. I am just too stupid to breathe. So I will continue to pollute your air until you send the enviro-cops to gag me.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

Summarized the main points w/o adding more length to my post. PERMITTED AND REQUIRED. It didn't alter the meaning. So yes, maybe you should try to stop pulling for straws.

2) Glad we're settled on that point. Feel better having to admit that you're wrong on the TOS?

3) Well that's fine SBC bought the liability but prior to 2006 ATT owned it. As per other networks cooperating, we don't fully know who. If they did, they should be just as liable. Or are you trying to justify bad behavior, as it seems you have done all along?

3) A Comcast customer's data will only traverse ATTIS if he has a direct P2P connection with an AT&T customer

You're understanding of computers is limited, I can tell. When you visit a website or connect to places (p2p is an example but not limited to), you go through what's known as hops. Say you visit an international page, you might have to transverse ATT's lines as they own lots of level 3.

However, here's the big one. Leasing lines. Like Earthlink does to RoadRunner. If an ISP leases lines from ATT and has not agreed to have their customer's traffic monitored, guess what, they will be out of luck. Lots of smaller isps do this, and even some bigger ones. There go, a huge dilemma. Should this ISP now be forced to suffer liability as well, even if they have no alternatives of who to use for their pipes?

4) Repeating an error 50 times does not change the erroneous nature of the statement. The U.S. Constitution only applies to government, WRT to unreasonable search and seizure

It's not in error, you JUST CANNOT READ. I WILL SAY THIS I BIG LETTERS TO FACILITATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW APPLIES IF THE DATA GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT OR RIAA / MPAA AS THEY DID WITH THE NSA. IT WILL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WITHOUT COURT ORDER. OTHERWISE, YES, IT CONTENDS WITH STATE WIRETAP AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAWS.

5) I disagree. I saw nothing in the proposed filter solution to lead one to that conclusion.

History speaks for itself. They did it once, whose to say it won't happen again?

As for a conclusion, there's nothing one sided about it. You simply won't let the magnitude of my points sink in long enough before responding.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

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.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Wow

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/ ··· arge.jpg

As you can see, their backbone network is VERY EXTENSIVE and I'm sure other carriers pass through it.

As per the Filtering technology, it can happen at a DSLAM. It's called routers. Not only can you block ports, you can specify what information is allowed to pass through. Furthermore, you route data how you want. Whose to say an extra hop wont be added where as the data is first sent to ATT via the routers, before reaching the customer? Sure this will make pings suck, but it wouldn't be out of the question.

4) READ... R-E-A-D. I said if the data from ATT is given to those entities (government, RIAA, MPAA), it becomes a Constitution issue since the data was obtained without warrant. Just as a BANK CANNOT hand your financial records freely to anyone without a court order. Otherwise, it is a state, federal, and interstate commerce issue since it deals with filtering but not turning over the data (pending that's the case). GET THAT THROUGH THAT HEAD PLEASE.

5) As per SBC, well tough luck to SBC. They bought the company and assumed it's liability. I guess they should have had better lawyers. Even if they didn't cooperate, they now must pay the price since they didn't investigate their purchase a little bit better.

You able to grasp this or should we settle on the fact, you'll continue to try to argument your non-existing points, feeling like you've proved something here? So far, we' know your TOS argument sucks, Your support and justification for the NSA / Filterint holds no water, shall we continue?

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: Wow

said by jc10098:

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.p ··· 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/ ··· arge.jpg

As you can see, their backbone network is VERY EXTENSIVE and I'm sure other carriers pass through it.
Nor did I state otherwise. I have tried to explain the difference between AT&T Worldnet Services (ATTW) and AT&T Internet Services (ATTIS).

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.

••••••••

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

PhoenixDown to flycuban

Premium Member

to flycuban
That took some balls, good job!

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Awesome!

I thought he did a great job and kudos to him!

Now he just needs to do that on a show that someone has actually heard about, on a network that someone has actually heard about.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

4 edits

gaforces (banned)

Member

Transcript?

The video stops at 21% for me and wont play, blocking already?
Thats what it will be like if they are allowed to start filtering, some executive will decide that it's good for ATT stockholders to block anything that is disparaging to them.
Send the kill bit's boys! We'll learn them to mess with our right to stomp on the Constitution for our corporate needs!
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

nasadude

Member

the telco internet

there you go - this is the internet the telcos and the govt want in the very near future, where no packet goes uninspected and never is heard a discouraging word.

Gen. Hayden is jizzing his britches just thinking about it.

lettcco
join:2003-12-04
Valencia, CA

lettcco

Member

I know what the "&T" stands for now

Totalitarianism
offspring07
join:2008-01-06
Taxis River, NB

offspring07

Member

He is right on the money

He is right, no one wants AT&T to go through their packets.

Spazmoto
Kill all Bloodsuckers
join:2003-08-22

Spazmoto

Member

Worst show

That show is terrible. What the heck is up with the host? He's like an even more boring and awkward version of Subway Jared. And that band...

BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11

1 recommendation

BabyBear

Member

Re: Worst show

Yeah wonder where they found the audience at? Did sheriff deputies have to yank people of the street like they did in Colorado last week for Jury Duty!?

MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

MrMoody

Premium Member

Re: Worst show

Jury press gangs, that would be funny to think about if it weren't so scary.

BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11

BabyBear

Member

Camera

Wonder how Richard Blakeley snuck his camera in. Most productions for tv are more paranoid about bringing in cameras and such than movie theaters. Quality looks better than just your normal camera phone.

Oh Boy AT&T Tech channel. Sure there wont be any bias there. "Today we're reviewing AT&T's spectacular TV offering called U-verse, we'll let you know what we think right after this commerical break."
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

1 recommendation

jc10098

Member

Re: Camera

Easy, maybe that was one of the gadgets he was suppose to be talking about =). Just so happened he tested it via other means
LostMile
Premium Member
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI

1 recommendation

LostMile

Premium Member

I got another brilliant idea...

As long as T is snooping through their customers mail, maybe they could delete the spam?

Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY

1 recommendation

Millenniumle

Member

Good excuse to save some money

Between the government wanting to access and screen everything, AT&T wanting to filter, and Time Warner wanting to cap and charge it's probably a good idea to reconsider what we spend on internet related equipment. The future desirability of the internet seems at best questionable.

When I look at my own computers, if it were not for internet I'd have no use for them. If it turns into a monitored, filtered, overpriced channel for protected content I don't think it would be worth the time or money. Better think twice if my eye catches some bigger better laptop. I already have a tv.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Joel Johnson is a jackass

It wasn't his show. So he doesn't get to set the agenda. He pulled the same stuff 60 minutes does when they ambush a target and then do everything possible to slant the item their way.

••••••••••••••
caco
Premium Member
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

caco

Premium Member

Most likely scenario.

ATT owns right to show. They will most likely send yank down letters to wherever Johnson manages to post video.Watch it while you can folks.

And to answer the question, will they filter discussion on filters? Yes, most likely excuse will be that this was not topic that Mr. Johnson was invited to talk on.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

Re: Most likely scenario.

Everybody copy it! LOL!
Youtube it a few hundred times!

Got MySpace? Slap that baby up there!

BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11

BabyBear

Member

Re: Most likely scenario.

Funny thing is, if the filters were in place, they could just add the video's signature and in theory no one on AT&T internet connection, could watch, post, download or in anyway xfer the video. Encryption not withstanding of course.

Then the fact that people on AT&T still could transfer the video would only show the fact that the filters dont work. Course AT&T would just say "oh we would never think of censoring our customers, so thats why you were able to transfer the unauthorized video blah blah blah."

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

ztmike

Premium Member

lol

I lol'd

I wonder if the Associated Press will pick this up?

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx

Member

A Very easy solution

Get the HARDWARE vendors to offer a 'piracy free' ios image. Sure, your connection will be dead slow, but you can be assured no P2P traffic will pass on your router. And you won't be sued, because all your packets will be inspected before they are passed. That would make the MAFIAA very happy, because you wouldn't be able to download MP3's or Movies.

Of course, only US hardware vendors would implement this, because, quite frankly, the rest of the world doesn't care. Wonder if that would cause any financial loss to Cisco? Hmm.. only time will tell.

Look at it this way, if you buy computer hardware from an American company, you will be supporting 'the american MAFIAA', if you don't want to support them, then just buy your computer stuff from overseas.

This solves all of AT&T's problems with privacy, you KNOW if you buy US equipment, the government and industry will be monitoring you. The rest of us, well, we'll just buy our hardware from ANYWHERE ELSE in the world.

wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH

wruckman

Member

Gotcha!

How about them apples AT&T? Try to hide the truth? Choke on it!
grumpy3b
join:2001-12-11
Lompoc, CA

grumpy3b

Member

It's coming...soon...

It will soon be classified as illegal to use PGP encryption to stop the prying eyes. I bet if you already do this your data is flagged as a potential threat.

Kinda spooky. Who watches the watchers? I know...the RIAA can watch the Fed.

AOL_Part_Deux
@sbcglobal.net

AOL_Part_Deux

Anon

One more vote against filtering

I've been with AT&T since Telocity went boobs up, and they have been an excellent ISP. Speeds have always been rock-solid, and I can count the number of outages on one hand.

But if AT&T starts filtering the Net, they will never see another cent from me again.

DSL... Poof!
Land line... Poof!

AT&T claims they are going to listen to their customers. Well, I'm a customer. Let's see if they listen.

Yeah, I know. Fat lot of good posting here will do. Some AT&T employee is probably reading this and saying "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

didn't know about the Tech Channel

I'm more interested in the channel than the show. Is it something for U-Verse? Something online only? I hope they don't plan to turn it into a 24 hour TV channel.

Did they invite the guy on to ask about gadgets? Or just talk about whatever he wanted? I don't know anything about the shows audience so I can't say whether he was making for bad TV or not. I'd watch a channel that talked about internet policy... call it DSLReportsTV
remusrm
join:2003-04-07
Frazier Park, CA

remusrm

Member

maybe...???

maybe i am paranoid but lately allot of besides just do not load up with att, while at work that is censored it does. Also really slow for some sites like consumerist.com, ripoff report.com and such

DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON

DigitalXeron

Member

Question

Since AT&T is a backbone network, will packets over their backbone be filtered as well? if so, I wager there will be legality issues since people from other ISPs (Who did not agree to AT&T's TOS thus not agreed to have packets filtered) will be getting filtered.

•••
page: 1 · 2 · next