Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Rewrites Privacy Policy

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the wow-just-wow dept.

VikingThunder writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that AT&T has revamped its privacy policy, in an effort to head off future consumer lawsuits, with changes taking effect this Friday. AT&T is introducing a new policy that gives it more 'latitude' when it comes to sharing your browsing history with government agencies. Notable changes include notification that AT&T will track viewing habits of customers of its new video services Homezone and U-Verse, which is forbidden for cable and satellite companies, as well as explicitly stating that the customer's data belongs to the company: 'While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"

2 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's time to take action. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Informative
    "Does Vonage encrypt their traffic?"

    I dunno...but, if you want to make their tracking data useless for you...start trying to encrypt ALL your internet traffic.

    Grant it....it will slow you up a bit, but, will make you far less traceable. Set up anon. browsing, set up nym accounts for email...that will help your mail at least be encrypted, even from those who don't know how to use pgp.

    In general, also start trying to use SSH and vpns for most everything you do....it is a bit slower and PITA, but, might be worth it in the end, considering this new policy, and the govt's recent attempts to get ALL ISP's to "voluntarilly" keep all internet access records stored for 2 years.
    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Re:It's time to take action. by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except in this case, where the german police decided acting "inconspicious" was suspicious in and of itself:

    http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?t ype=worldFootballNews&storyID=2006-06-06T201822Z_0 1_L06509705_RTRIDST_0_SPORT-SOCCER-WORLD-STRIPSEAR CH.XML