AT&T Looking at Internet Filtering

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently AT&T is still contemplating whether or not it should filter internet traffic. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, likened filtering internet traffic to the moral obligation someone has that witnessed a DVD theft from a store. Say what?

CEO Randall Stephenson told a conference at the World Economic Forum that the company is looking at monitoring peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, one of the largest drivers of online traffic but also a common way to illegally exchange copyright files.
Click to expand...
 
"It's like being in a store and watching someone steal a DVD. Do you act?" Stephenson asked.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no.

It is the same as the store security guard searching everyone’s handbags and pockets as they enter/leave the store trying to see if they stole a DVD.
 
Steve said:
Ummm, no.

It is the same as the store security guard searching everyone’s handbags and pockets as they enter/leave the store trying to see if they stole a DVD.
Click to expand...

OO here comes another ISP to start charging per gig now....
 
they already will start blocking ports like port 25 if they see you using an outside smtp. I would love to know how they are getting away with rebuilding their monopoly that they were forced to break apart when they were bell. They already retook southern bell and forced out any data competition from using their phone lines.
 
I love how company suits always use these phrases to really make people think....not! Give me a break; 'Watching someone steal a DVD...' is once again another excuse to claim more power in the interest of AT&T. It gives them complete control over internet novices who don't know any better. I think in no circumstances should anyone be filtering information, unless, there is clear and reasonable cause.
 
So the next will do the same. So pathetic.


ISP's use this "moral obligation" to cover their tracks of secretly wanting to reduce bandwidth overhead. If they can get their users to pay $50 a month just to check email and only email, they would.
 
I feel the problem is that the consumer is charged for this. I just don't believe the AT&T is going to foot the bill for all this monitoring tech and maintenance to keep it going. ISPs do not have a moral obligation and I'm disguisted at all this nonsense the RIAA has stirred up. The RIAA and MPAA should not have been allowed to carry on as they have. The government should have stepped in long ago. These media associations are no authority and now ISPs are making these moves to avoid having to deal with them, exactly what RIAA and MPAA wanted in the first place. They want everyone to look out for their best interests. We don't benefit from any of this. From the accounts of some artists that have posted various articles and comments recently, they don't benefit much if at all either.

In the end AT&T filtering traffic won't affect me and I don't use P2P but it still sucks.

<--Hugs his FIOS Actiontec router for his 50/20 service.
 
The sad part is, isnt our traffic supposed to be private? What business do they have sorting through what i send to others or what i get from others.

Im reminded of something i saw on the Today show a few years ago - an elderly couple with a scanner honed in on a high ranking politician's cell phone call about something that he shouldnt have been talking about and recorded it hoping to get him in trouble - nothing came of it because what they did was either illegal or not admissable or something like that

Isnt this technically very similiar?
 
Ruckus said:
they already will start blocking ports like port 25 if they see you using an outside smtp. I would love to know how they are getting away with rebuilding their monopoly that they were forced to break apart when they were bell. They already retook southern bell and forced out any data competition from using their phone lines.
Click to expand...

Actually you are quite wrong. Southern Bell Bought AT&T.

AT&T did not buy Southern Bell.

Southern Bell just kept the ATT name because its brand is worth more. ATT as we know it is actually the SBC company not the ATT company from 2 years ago.

They are rebuilding the monoploy but its more fitting now. There competitor is not other phone companies but rather cable and wireless companies now. Within 10 /15 years I think we will see all mediums move towards wireless.

Comcast/ATT/Verizon already seem to be gearing up for it.
 
You've got somewhat of a good point there Ockie. I don't think they would take it that far but they probably would want to curb the P2P traffic if not outright eliminate it altogether. I think when it comes to capacity, P2P and spam are probably their biggest problems.
 
Lamont Cranston said:
The sad part is, isnt our traffic supposed to be private? What business do they have sorting through what i send to others or what i get from others.

Im reminded of something i saw on the Today show a few years ago - an elderly couple with a scanner honed in on a high ranking politician's cell phone call about something that he shouldnt have been talking about and recorded it hoping to get him in trouble - nothing came of it because what they did was either illegal or not admissable or something like that

Isnt this technically very similiar?
Click to expand...
Not if there are provisions in the TOS and Acceptable Use policies that allow for such monitoring. You are paying to use a privately owned service, I would expect them to be allowed to do whatever they wanted as longs as it's in the contract and you agree to it. I'm not endorsing that, I'm just sayin. :)
 
solo16 said:
Actually you are quite wrong. Southern Bell Bought AT&T.

AT&T did not buy Southern Bell.

Southern Bell just kept the ATT name because its brand is worth more. ATT as we know it is actually the SBC company not the ATT company from 2 years ago.

They are rebuilding the monoploy but its more fitting now. There competitor is not other phone companies but rather cable and wireless companies now. Within 10 /15 years I think we will see all mediums move towards wireless.

Comcast/ATT/Verizon already seem to be gearing up for it.
Click to expand...

It's Southwestern Bell, not Southern Bell, Southern Bell was Bought by Southwestern Bell, as was pac bell,ameritech, and a couple of others.
 
Lamont Cranston said:
The sad part is, isnt our traffic supposed to be private? What business do they have sorting through what i send to others or what i get from others.

Im reminded of something i saw on the Today show a few years ago - an elderly couple with a scanner honed in on a high ranking politician's cell phone call about something that he shouldnt have been talking about and recorded it hoping to get him in trouble - nothing came of it because what they did was either illegal or not admissable or something like that

Isnt this technically very similiar?
Click to expand...

Dont forget was it not ATT that handed over all of the traffic records of its users a few years back ? They done so without ASKing the users....they just said okay here you go
 
If I saw someone steal a DVD I'd let them.

Why? Because my life is not worth a fucking DVD. I'm not a cop, I'm not a security guard, and while I work retail, it still isn't my job to protect product outside of properly securing it through company merchandising standards (i.e. locking it up, clamshelling, etc.) because I don't work loss prevention either. Just recently some guys had some brass balls to come in with a boltcutter to steal our iPods. Anyone with balls like that is not someone I'm going to mess with, because that boltcutter can also make a good weapon in a pinch. Even if it didn't, there was six of them and one of me. I'm not stupid or ten feet tall.

And if it costs me my job to let a criminal go, oh well. I have one life. I can get another job. My contribution at most is a phonecall to loss prevention's office. It ends there.
 
Ockie said:
ISP's use this "moral obligation" to cover their tracks of secretly wanting to reduce bandwidth overhead. If they can get their users to pay $50 a month just to check email and only email, they would.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "if?" Looks to me like they're already well on their way to that.
 
tesfaye said:
Not if there are provisions in the TOS and Acceptable Use policies that allow for such monitoring. You are paying to use a privately owned service, I would expect them to be allowed to do whatever they wanted as longs as it's in the contract and you agree to it. I'm not endorsing that, I'm just sayin. :)
Click to expand...

Welcome to the era of the corporate fascist state. :eek:

It gets worse when they start acting as an arm of the government-- an arm that is completely immune to constitutional rights (not that the government actually uses the Constitution as anything more than toilet tissue anymore).
 
UrielDagda said:
Welcome to the era of the corporate fascist state. :eek:

It gets worse when they start acting as an arm of the government-- an arm that is completely immune to constitutional rights (not that the government actually uses the Constitution as anything more than toilet tissue anymore).
Click to expand...

ehhh well they use the " Homeland security " card all the time now as they evade our rights to privacy. Sad thing is they have the masses believing in it too. Like I said give the government an inch they will try to take 10 miles worth.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
If I saw someone steal a DVD I'd let them.

Why? Because my life is not worth a fucking DVD. I'm not a cop, I'm not a security guard, and while I work retail, it still isn't my job to protect product outside of properly securing it through company merchandising standards (i.e. locking it up, clamshelling, etc.) because I don't work loss prevention either. Just recently some guys had some brass balls to come in with a boltcutter to steal our iPods. Anyone with balls like that is not someone I'm going to mess with, because that boltcutter can also make a good weapon in a pinch. Even if it didn't, there was six of them and one of me. I'm not stupid or ten feet tall.

And if it costs me my job to let a criminal go, oh well. I have one life. I can get another job. My contribution at most is a phonecall to loss prevention's office. It ends there.
Click to expand...


Amen to that. But honestly WTF concern is it to AT&T if someone fucking steals a DVD or even Downloads it. They still get paid for the service they provide. Its not their job to work security for the MPAA or RIAA. and Damn I guess this means I cant download pron onto my Samsung Blackjack anymore :(
 
I guess this will set the legal precedent that the post office can read/inspect anything I send through the USPO and UPS and FedEx can open all the packages I send and receive? No warrant necessary.
 
Skirge01 said:
I guess this will set the legal precedent that the post office can read/inspect anything I send through the USPO and UPS and FedEx can open all the packages I send and receive? No warrant necessary.
Click to expand...

they already do something like that.... they have machines now kinda that xrays the packages.
 
Look for a money trail. No company is going to spend the resources and money for this type of monitoring and enforcement unless they see a profit in doing so. Whether the RIAA, MPAA or another organization is paying them or they just see profit by cutting down on the amount of bandwidth used; they only see this as a way of increasing profit.

ISPs do not have to worry about legal trouble if they don't do anything as precedent has already been set in regards to ISPs not being held liable for content being transferred on their network.

Follow the money trail and you will find the real reasons.

 
good thing AT&T doesn't own my cable company...

oh wait, they do.. dammit
 
Steve said:
Ummm, no.

It is the same as the store security guard searching everyone’s handbags and pockets as they enter/leave the store trying to see if they stole a DVD.
Click to expand...

Fry's already does that. I just walk past them, but they still try.

All we can really do, other than bitch about it, is to not use AT&T service, or any other service that does this. The only way to speak to corporations is through there products. If we don't like there policies, stop using there service, no matter how fast, no matter if it's the only one available. Show them that what we want (privacy) is more important than anything else.

On the subject of this being legal, anything is legal if you sign a piece of piece of paper giving them permission. It's wrong and not an ISPs right or responsibility, but they can still do it if you let them.

Looking into the future a little bit, who decides what traffic should be blocked? If this gets out of control I can see us easily turning into China, where the internet operates on a block all allow only these list, for the entire country. Except that it's ISPs determining what we want/need/can use the internet for.

Governments and Businesses don't understand free. They will continually push the bounds of free trade, traffic, speech, information, you name it. They will just keep coming unless there is always someone to push back.
 
Is AT&T the new Sony?

Do everything wrong as far as appreciating customers?

I've become pretty much convinced that the top 2% of human beings in this world have "got theirs" and the other 98% of us are just considered necessary overhead.
 
That's an interesting question actually. No, they are not required to look for this stuff.

However, if they DO start monitoring for it, and they miss something, can they then be taken to court for negligence ?

If they implement this, and they miss a download of a movie, I hope the MPAA sues them for 600 billion dollars.



SmokeRngs said:
Look for a money trail. No company is going to spend the resources and money for this type of monitoring and enforcement unless they see a profit in doing so. Whether the RIAA, MPAA or another organization is paying them or they just see profit by cutting down on the amount of bandwidth used; they only see this as a way of increasing profit.

ISPs do not have to worry about legal trouble if they don't do anything as precedent has already been set in regards to ISPs not being held liable for content being transferred on their network.

Follow the money trail and you will find the real reasons.

Click to expand...
 
likened filtering internet traffic to the moral obligation someone has that witnessed a DVD theft from a st
Click to expand...

This suggestes they are already watching what you do, now they are just deciding if they're going to report it, not if they are going to start looking.:(
 
Looks like AT&T is saying we're all guilty until proven innocent. A bit backwards, don'tcha think?
 
Ockie said:
So the next will do the same. So pathetic.


ISP's use this "moral obligation" to cover their tracks of secretly wanting to reduce bandwidth overhead. If they can get their users to pay $50 a month just to check email and only email, they would.
Click to expand...


Well considering you can send an Album or Movie within an E-Mail they will probably start reading them as well. And limit it to only 5 E-mails a day, and sense the first 5 E-Mails you get is worthless spam that means the ones you actually want will not be allowed thru.
 
If anyone wants the TOS from AT&T its self I got it the direct link to it (its the registration site)


i want to post the whole thing but the post would probably be considered spam...
 
why can't I edit posts in here...


9. MEMBER CONDUCT

You agree that you will NOT use the Service to:

a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content (as defined below) that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable

d. forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any Content transmitted through the Service;

e. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);

f. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;

g. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation, except in those areas (such as shopping) that are designated for such purpose;

h. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any material that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;




If this continues I am going to terminate my service, and stop working at AT&T. This is BS



All can be seen at The registration site.
 
From the interview I saw on aots, AT&T was doing this to get chummy chummy with hollywood. AT&T wants to become a cable monopoly and it was viewed that they would have to submit to hollywood's wishes to do so.
 
We need someone to sue them the SECOND they do this for not blocking any adult sites,hacker sites, etc.
They are exempt from this now because they are a "common carrier", but as soon as they block ONE thing they go back on their own legal position and should get slammed with everything they can.

This will at least make them have to say in public what there stand is from now on and means people can have another choice.

Of course AT&T is MY provider so I am screwed right now (though no P2P right now)
 
"It's like being in a store and watching someone steal a DVD. Do you act?" Stephenson asked.
Click to expand...

No you don't, because if you do you get your ass fired, it's not your job to do that shit. Look at Home Depot or other big stores who have fired people for acting on stopping a thief. Hell AT&T already gave Carte Blanche to the US Government on wiretaps and all that shit, the government is security control, so it's up to them to stop the crooks, not AT&T.
 
BTW everyone saying they're terminate service with AT&T whatever... doesn't this apply to AT&T's lines, which AFAIK are most of the lines through the whole country? Got Netzero? sorry they still use AT&T lines.

Time for the government to get in there and break MaBell back the fuck up into smaller chunks!
 
Where is Google with all of this dark fiber they have been buying up?!

I'll take a Google ISP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top