ATT will help H'wd spy on traffic, but Verizon says it won't.
Link to entry on NYT "Bits" blog.He said the company’s view combines a concern for the privacy of its customers with self interest. It may be costly for it to get into the business of policing the traffic on its network. Indeed, phone companies have largely spent a century trying not to be liable for what people say over their lines.
“We generally are reluctant to get into the business of examining content that flows across our networks and taking some action as a result of that content,” he said.
Mr. Tauke offered at least three objections to the concept: 1) The slippery slope. Once you start going down the path of looking at the information going down the network, there are many that want you to play the role of policeman. Stop illegal gambling offshore. Stop pornography. Stop a whole array of other kinds of activities that some may think inappropriate.
2) It opens up potential liability for failing to block copyrighted work. When you look back at the history of copyright legislation, there has been an effort by Hollywood to pin the liability for copyright violations on the network that transmits the material. It is no secret they think we have deeper pockets than others and we are easy-to-find targets.
3) Privacy. Anything we do has to balance the need of copyright protection with the desire of customers for privacy.
Previously:
the latest
latest episodes
I am still completely confused as to how ATT is going to be able to decipher between copyrighted material and that which isnt.
Things like this make me proud I didn't switch from Verizon to AT&T for an iPhone.
Goddamned right. And I thought Verizon sucked. Personal experience so far with their cellphone service and FIOS has been nothing but awesome. Wait for the 3g iphone to come out, it'll be worth it to get verizon's cdma service.
Back in the old days when I lived in Iowa, this guy Tom Tauke was a congressman, I don't remember, but I sure hope I voted for him. What a breath of fresh air... a telecom exec with some common sense.
Maybe Verizon executives took a lesson from the public displeasure at their yielding to government surveillance programs, or maybe that's hoping too far.
Sorry, call me a cynic, but I think his 1st concern may be point 2), namely the risk of liability.
Hmmm, I think I spoke too soon. Perhaps he does get it. An attitude of "let that content fly so we can have more customers" seems like a step in the right direction.
Yeah, and at least he did mention fear of liability as reason #2 and didn't bury it at #3, which would be the usual.
@ 3
Yeah, that's the plan. I just got a Venus for Christmas and it'll hold me over for awhile.
I don't really care much about his or the rest of the company's motivations. As long as they do the right thing in the end, they can do it for whatever reason they want.
I'm just glad I have a choice of providers:
1) AT&T
2) SBC
3) Charter Communications, well at least it is until it hits the box next to my property where it turns into an AT&T network.
Hooray choice!
the motive for the phone company is always profit. in this case by bad-mouthing a competitor to improve market position. if there was money to be made, let's say the govt paying for content to be censored, they would do it.
in my experience, the greed of the telco's creates a surprising byproduct: they absolutely don't care what you do with their product as long as you pay the bill. trust me, who would they be to judge someone's ethics? but then again, they're regulated by the govt, so when govt tells them to do something...
and by the way, i think it was just today that AT&T announced a $5 a mo. raise in broadband services, guess they found a way to fund the cost of filtering
#4 posted by Jake0748
"Back in the old days when I lived in Iowa, this guy Tom Tauke was a congressman, I don't remember, but I sure hope I voted for him. What a breath of fresh air... a telecom exec with some common sense."
Tom Tauke
Tauke is now Executive Vice President, Public Affairs, Policy and Communications for Verizon. He has made recent news with his statements in opposition to the Net Neutrality Bill, which has been a recent source of debate among internet users. As a spokesman for Verizon, one of the main opponents of the bill, Tauke has expressed his discontent with Net Neutrality.
It's strange Fedex, DHL, UPS, and even USPS don't open up every package and letter to make sure there's copyrighted material inside. In fact in the US it is a violation of federal law for anyone other than the receiver to open mail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail)
So why should AT&T be able to open up the virtual equivalent of "mail," have some program look at it to decide if it can pass?
The reason I am apposed to this is that it is going to slow the internet down to the flow rate of pitch at absolute zero. AT&T will have to look at every packet flying through, which takes time. Which means online gaming is going to die. Youtube will die. And if we are lucky AT&T will die too.
If AT&T starts doing this we should all start laying down our own fiber and setting up mesh networks.
So why should AT&T be able to open up the virtual equivalent of "mail," have some program look at it to decide if it can pass?
It's the tea kettle principle. They can steam it open, read it and then seal it up so that you don't know that they did it. That's the only material difference. They don't care about right and wrong, just what they can get away with.
You couldn't spell out "Hollywood" in the headline? Not all of us watch Entertainment Tonight and Extra, you know.
Don't all of these silly eavesdropping schemes assume the content is unencrypted? Won't these silly eavesdropping schemes simply trigger widespread adoption of encryption for all content?
then they make encryption illegal
mod_ssl. that is all.
MoreHuman - Examining file sharing traffic is more like perusing vendors at a market to spot bootleg CDs. There's nothing invasive about that. By the very definition of the protocol, you're putting it out there for anyone to grab.
The postal analogy works with encrypted traffic. You have to make an effort to open and reseal that envelope. Good crypto means you can't. People have to realize that using the Internet is like sending a postcard or like putting postage on an unwrapped item. (Which is exactly what TCP/IP does when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.) Anyone who sees it en-route can read it, and this includes the carriers.
If you want to package your item or put your letter in an envelope, that's an extra step, and it greatly decreases the chance that someone will be able to look at it.
So, I have two questions for the techies:
1. There's a lot of talk about encryption in this comment thread. Is there an easy way to encrypt all network traffic? My first thought is that the answer is no, since both sides need to be set up for the encryption, but a real answer would be appreciated.
2. How effective would Tor and Privoxy be against what AT&T is proposing?
I'm having big trouble with AT&T's dsl right now! Ahhhh! I now hate them. Don't they understand addiction issues?
@10:
AT&T = SBC
After SBC bought them out a few years ago, they were required to change SBC name/brand to ATT.
Seems the bottom line in any business should be "how does it profit me?" and I see no way for them to profit off this unless the authorities are going to penalize them for not doing it. It's a lot of extra work with no bonus at the end.
UNLESS with all the aggregation of companies these days, AT&T is owned by say, Disney or Warners, or they're all owned by some mega-conglomerate (the RAMJAC corporation maybe?)
Reminds me of the argument that gun-makers should be held liable for murders committed with their weapons.
3 cheers for Verizon for protecting their customers' privacy!
If this puts them in line for more profit, I'd say it's an astute decision all around, isn't it?
Go Verizon!
Ill Lich, from what I've gathered out in the finacial blog-o-sphere, this move by AT&T is being viewed as a mixed bag. AT&T says that the company is all for service, but that it wants to help ensure that other investment sectors are protected. AT&T is generally a conservative company, and that usually means playing along with the Powers That Be. If you take a look, AT&T's plans have not negitively affected the stock price.