AT&T Claims Paying Extra For Privacy Is A 'Benefit'

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Dear AT&T, why don't you have a seat right over there, I believe the Federal Communications Commission is going to want to have a few words with you in the very near future.

AT&T's decision to turn privacy into a luxury option is believed to be one of the things that prompted the FCC's push for tougher privacy rules, but if you ask AT&T, the behavior is a huge boon to consumers. The Consumerist notes how AT&T lobbyist Jacquelyne Flemming recently tried to defend the behavior at an industry conference, once again trying to pretend that paying more per month to have your privacy respected was some kind of discount.
 
If they truly intended it to be an add-on benefit service, they'd try to sign you up repeatedly until you managed to kill the add on with fire. The fact that they evidently make it hard to find, confusing and hard to sign up for means they 1) Really don't want you to do this 2) Don't want to bring attention how much they're snooping or 3) Both.

If there's ever a shortage of cow manure, have a bunch of lobbyists lay down on a flatbed wagon with their heads over the side and tell them to recite their proposals as the tractor pulls them around the field.
 
Their argument is not really an effective smokescreen, if it's a discount, I'm not sure how they're able to extract $30/month via snooping on the intertubes. Also, if it's a discount, why does the discounted price match the price before they started offering the ability to not be snooped?
 
toast0 said:
Their argument is not really an effective smokescreen, if it's a discount, I'm not sure how they're able to extract $30/month via snooping on the intertubes. Also, if it's a discount, why does the discounted price match the price before they started offering the ability to not be snooped?
Click to expand...

It's the discount they gave you with out telling you... duh... you know 'cause they are good to their customers even by automatically charging less!
 
Stuff like this is always what I think of when I hear people defend the rights of large corporations and how less regulation is needed.
 
Times like this when "anonymous" is good to have around -- make the lives of these lobbyist and shitbag corporate guys a living hell by publishing every nasty detail they try to hide from public. Oh you wanted privacy? Then maybe you should stop creating these stupid laws fucking over everyone else.

Lobbying is just so wrong on any level -- it should be made illegal and any politician who benefits from it removed from office.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Times like this when "anonymous" is good to have around -- make the lives of these lobbyist and shitbag corporate guys a living hell by publishing every nasty detail they try to hide from public. Oh you wanted privacy? Then maybe you should stop creating these stupid laws fucking over everyone else.

Lobbying is just so wrong on any level -- it should be made illegal and any politician who benefits from it removed from office.
Click to expand...

But where do you draw the line between groups of citizens petitioning their government and scummy corporate lobbyists? The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, without fear of reprisal or punishment, is enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
 
Hey, pretty soon banks are going to charge you to keep your money in your checking and savings account. They are all ready doing it in Europe, Greece I think. it is called negative interest. Pile on AT&T, you POS.
 
whiz187 said:
Hey, pretty soon banks are going to charge you to keep your money in your checking and savings account. They are all ready doing it in Europe, Greece I think. it is called negative interest. Pile on AT&T, you POS.
Click to expand...
Banks have been charging monthly fees for just about forever. Mine is only free because I have direct deposit from my employer setup with them.
 
DocSavage said:
Banks have been charging monthly fees for just about forever. Mine is only free because I have direct deposit from my employer setup with them.
Click to expand...

They have been doing this for ages is true. Their new way is to actually not pay you any interest, and pay a negative interest rate. Now the more money you save, the larger the cost (negative interest, increases as balance increases). Truly a sad world we live in.
 
triwolf said:
They have been doing this for ages is true. Their new way is to actually not pay you any interest, and pay a negative interest rate. Now the more money you save, the larger the cost (negative interest, increases as balance increases). Truly a sad world we live in.
Click to expand...
Now that I think about it, with inflation, unless your bank pays you the same amount of interest as the inflation rate, it's the same effect. We already have this now.
 
whiz187 said:
Hey, pretty soon banks are going to charge you to keep your money in your checking and savings account. They are all ready doing it in Europe, Greece I think. it is called negative interest. Pile on AT&T, you POS.
Click to expand...

Mine started doing that soon after the financial crisis of 2008, after which the government required banks to go easy on people who overdrafted and were late in paying their bills. The connection is rather obvious, despite the post hoc ergo propter hoc resemblance.
 
DocSavage said:
Now that I think about it, with inflation, unless your bank pays you the same amount of interest as the inflation rate, it's the same effect. We already have this now.
Click to expand...

If you're earning interest though, even if it doesn't keep up with inflation, it at least doesn't make the losses bigger.
 
Gweenz said:
Like this: was money involved in the form of donations or bribes?
Click to expand...

So all the thousands of people donating to Bernie Sanders's campaign should be prevented from petitioning the government for grievances in the event he becomes President, or even now while he represents Vermont in the U.S. Senate? I don't think the sacrificial act of contributing part of one's wages to a political campaign should entail surrendering a Constitutional right, especially since Constitutional rights are assumed to be unalienable and thus incapable of being either removed by the government or surrendered by the people.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
But where do you draw the line between groups of citizens petitioning their government and scummy corporate lobbyists? The right to petition the government for redress of grievances, without fear of reprisal or punishment, is enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I support everything in the bill of rights - protesting/free speech, all that jazz.

Lobbying specifically involves money/favors/back end agreements and shady shit all around. "money" is a great litmus test as to how legit certain things are in the government. If there's money involved... odds are it's not 100% legal. When a company devotes millions of dollars to it's lobbying efforts, that money is used for fancy dinners, fun trips,

Politics these days is all about who's fucking who over, and who can get the most money doing the least work. My personal opinion is that anyone holding a public office, or public service job should be held to the highest of standards, government officials, police, etc etc. It's been shown time and time again you can abuse your powers, fuck people over, and quite literally get away scott free. In situations like this, I have no problem with a sort of organized vigilante style punishment. If people think they are above or outside of the system, I have no problem with people that take the time/energy to put them in their place.

Something like a social contract that everyone is a part of. It's pretty easy to understand and follow the rules of be a decent person. What really sucks is that more and more we are seeing people in the government get away with anything they want. With politicians it's money, we see almost every day cops killing defenseless people. (I think the one going around now on reddit is the NM cop who killed a guy on the ground who was unarmed and begging for his life?)
 
our band just started charging all it's customers a $4.95/month fee
for 'secure checking' !!!

So, no or low intrest on money deposited in bank, then they start
charging monthly fees for security !

Not right.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top