Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sued Over Internet Data Gathering
saikou writes: "Slashdot already had an article about Comcast using transparent cache systems to track their cable modem users' browsing habits (purely for improvment of their networks, of course) and now here's the follow-up. Newsbyte posted yesterday a story about the lawsuit, demanding $100 per day of tracking for each customer. I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s) :)" Update: 05/25 12:37 GMT by T : burgburgburg points to a New York Times article about the case, and reminds you of two previous mentions of the controversial user-tracking effort (one, two).
Here's an idea then, invite law enforcement to come live with you for 3 months, watch you have sex, watch you bath, and more. The interesting thing is, many of us have been allowing this to slowly happen, while giving up our power to the government. A government that we are supposed to run. Besides that, this type of information can also be used to target sell to you. Why is it that my personal life should be in the hands of some corporation or the government.
Reserved Word.
No, nothing in the TOS to specificly state that.
Just a little FEDERAL LAW.
Read the article before you post idiocy.
It isn't so much the commercial use of this information that bothers me but, rather, that it's being accumulated in the first place leaves the door open for shady government agencies to have access to it in a harder to fight way than something slightly more attributable and, therefore, possible to fight such as Carnivore.
If you think about it, there was no real reason for the FBI to stick their neck out like that with an actual hardware wire-tap of their own when most ISPs would probably bend over backwards to share the info they've already collected for commercial reasons.
Want to know who's been visiting dangerous, subversive websites? Simply send Agent Crewcut to play a few rounds of golf with CEO Weasel and suggest that there might be some juicy government contracts coming up for grabs.
Actually, no it's not possible. Had comcast ever used any type of proxy setup, your scenario would be a sound one. I have been a Comcast subscriber for almost a year now (due to geographical isolation in the sticks of Southern Jersey) and at no point during my use have I ever detected the use of any type of proxies.
Although I agree that said use would not only be efficient, but if documented properly in the TOS, legal, those circumstances just don't exist.
So in this instance, not only were they in the wrong, they were downright despicable (in tying their "aggregate" usage statistics to individual users)
The $100 is exclusive of lawyer's fees. The NYT article states:
Goren, who predicted ``months or years'' of litigation, is seeking attorney's fees plus damages of at least $100 per day for every Comcast subscriber.
I guess even if it will work out, customers might get oh, say, $10. With rest being a fee for the lawyer(s)
We could endlessly repeat well-worn ideas yet never think about them, but let's try:
People complain that class action contingency attorneys pull a scam on their targets (e.g. Comcast) and their clients (e.g. Comcasts customers) and take all the $. Think about it; contingency lawyers (lawyers that collect large sums if they win, rather than smaller sums win or lose) and class action (grouping large numbers of small complaints into one big one: e.g. $100 damages * 1 million people = $100 million lawsuit) are the only way the less-than-rich get access to our court system.
o Contingency lawyers let everyone, not just the rich, use our court system. Our court system was too expensive for anyone but the rich. You must have a lawyer (technically you can represent yourself, just like my grandmother is technically allowed to hack the Linux kernel), and lawyers are expensive. If you couldn't afford one, no justice for you -- very democratic. Now, contingency lawyers take your case based on the hope you'll win and be able to pay them. Think about it -- would you work hundreds (or more) hours, hire experts and make every other investment at your own expense, and risk that if you lose (the other side has attorneys too) that you get $0.00? All that time, effort and money completely sunk? No way to buy dinner? Pay the mortgage? Put the kids through college? Even if you do win, you work now and get paid next year. Now you understand why contingency lawyers demand a larger percentage when they win.
o What other check, besides Class Action, is there on corporations screwing the millions of individuals who buy their products, work for them, share communities with them and invest hard-earned money in them? There aren't enough gov't regulators -- they couldn't even stop the multi-billion dollar Savings and Loan or Enron or other huge scandals -- can they protect the $10,000 of pension money Jane Elderly invested in Creative Financial Reporting Inc.? The citizens of a polluted neighborhood whose health is at risk? Or simply Ed Jones who wasted on their lies about their useless product? What deters some executive from twisting the financial statements, or ignoring the pollution or lying to consumers, simply to protect his job? What motivates the Board of Directors to question instead of rubber stamping their buddy the CEO who gave them their cushy jobs? It's not fear of the a few regulators; it's fear of massive lawsuits on behalf of every one of those people they might screw.
Sure, there are some bad lawyers who fleece the system, but so do some companies, doctors, politicians, bankers, police, programmers, etc. etc. Like everyone else, there are good lawyers and bad ones, and they all have their good and bad days. Plus, lawyers can't fleece anyone unless a jury and/or judge helps.
Funny that it's the part of our court system that serves the politically weak, not the part that serves the RIAA, the Fortune 500 corporations, etc., that gets all the mainstream criticism.
The point, for Comcast customers, is not the money. It's only $100; how much compensation do they deserve? It's the privacy and Comcast's behavior. If Comcast loses, neither they nor other ISPs will take a similar risk again. Isn't privacy valuable?
The lawyers take a big financial risk. For risking tens of thousands of their own money (are you paying their secretaries, office rent, research, etc.) and spending so much of their life on the case, should they get only the good feeling of having improved privacy for Americans (if they win)?
The Comcast customers get $xx buck each and privacy. The attorneys who put in their time and money, not knowing if they'd get it back, they get the cash.
Just an off-the-wall idea... Has it ever occurred to you that the reason it's slow, could also be because they haven't set up a cache for you to use? Maybe you and a hundred other people like you, are all using the same pipes for the same content at the same time, transmitted a hundred times instead of once.
Somewhere at some ISP, some guy is looking at blinkenlights, shaking his head with sadness as a thousand people all download the exact same ninety megabyte file containing a movie trailer. And then the phone rings: "My download is going slow," says the annoyed customer.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.