AT&T Rewrites Privacy Policy

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.'"

Comments

It's time to take action.

[evileyetmc]

Well, I knew it wasn't going to be long before companies decided to openly admit that playing politics was more important than treating their customers right. Agreed that they had been playing politics in the past *cough* Bush's domestic wiretapping *cough*, but only now are they confirming that and trying to save their behinds from lawsuits like the kind the EFF has filed for unwarranted wiretaps.
This is exactly the treachery that leads to companies going under...You f*ck the consumer, you get f*cked right back.

I say call up your local congressman/woman and tell them that you want the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 to include provisions for all methods of distributing content, including IPTV. Also explain to them that your privacy is important to you and that you want them to support as many privacy bills as they can.

Of course, if that doesn't work, just ditch AT&T. I know there is enough competition out there to cripple them. Alas, you might end up paying a bit more, but think of it as the price you pay for privacy, and consumer-friendliness.

Re:It's time to take action.

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Ditching ATT is not so easy, they have a very large infrastructure and massive backbone. There is really no way to avoid using their services, either directly or indirectly. I hate to say this, but the only way to stop this is through gov intervention (I wont say regulation because I have regulation), but there is little way for the avg consumer to impact ATT's pocket book, now if companies (end user ISPs and such) toss ATT, that would definately hurt them.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wont say regulation because I have regulation

Glad to hear you are getting your fiber.

Re:It's time to take action.

[voice_of_all_reason]

well, I just finished writing my letter, so a college temp making $7/hour will definitely be hearing it from me

Fixed.

Re:It's time to take action.

[harrkev]

Of course, if that doesn't work, just ditch AT&T.

I currently do not use AT&T. However...

Anytime anybody calls me using AT&T, my phone number appears in those records. And since I am not an AT&T customer, I have not agreed to their privacy policy. Is there any legal remedy for this?

Re:It's time to take action.

[alshithead]

I think AT&T is just the first domino in line. Ditching them won't do you any good when others will be following. I can certainly see Sprint and Verizon taking advantage of AT&T going first..."hey, we can say everyone is doing it!" "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process," Nice and broad. I wonder who gets to define "legal process".

Re:It's time to take action.

[Lumpy]

First remembet that it is not AT&T but SBC wearing a AT&T suit they bought.

This is typical SBC tactics they have been pulling over the years.... They just thought that by changing their name nobody would notice.

remember when you hear AT&T you are not hearing the AT&T from the past but SBC trying to hide from their reputation.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Billosaur]

Better to trial and fail then not try at all, I'd say. At least if you actively work to avoid them, eventually you will at least hurt them financially - which can eventually (hopefully?) lead to someone else with bigger pockets that we can trust finally buying out the backbone.

It's not so easy in more rural areas, but I suspect this will give Vonage a hefty boost if enough people get disenfranchised by AT&T over this to make the switch. That's assuming that Vonage can avoid more lawsuits.

Re:It's time to take action.

[TheGratefulNet]

you want to talk tech to a congresscritter?

really?

you think ANY of them really understand stuff like 'we' do?

(man! I don't know where to begin with that.)

they understand who pays them the most and who controls the votes. you can't EXPLAIN things to them. you can only wave votes or money in front of them. he with the biggest, wins.

Re:It's time to take action.

[gstoddart]

This is exactly the treachery that leads to companies going under...You f*ck the consumer, you get f*cked right back.

Well, it's a nice theory. In practice, it doesn't mean a damned thing. Cranky consumers can't do anything to a company like AT&T, not really.

If you explicitly refuse this new privacy policy, do you really believe that will cause them to purge your records? No, they're gonna retain what they have already even if it violates their previous policy.

What if you can't change? Live in a place where there is exactly one provider of broadband? Think you'll give up your high-speed just to try and punish AT&T? (And if you do, they're gonna keep what they have.)

Now that they've said this, and now that they're gonna track everything, your assent to their privacy policy will become irrelevant.

Since they operate much of the backbone, what is to stop them from passing on information about people with whom they don't actually have a current/past business relationship? Nothing, they'll still be passing on their routing data which covers people who could not possibly have consented to the privacy policy. International data gets routed through AT&Ts trunks.

Hell, I live in a whole different country (Canada), and my cell-phone company (Rogers) is associated with AT&T. Which probably means that some if not all of my own damned information is probably going to flow south of the border. Which fscking Congressman am I going to fskcing contact to complain about this? Oh, wait, that would be absolutely fsking noone, that's who.

Do you think the government is going to legislate/intervene/say anything? They want this kind of things more than ever. If a company makes you sign a contract that says "we can do anything we want", the current administration has only to gain from this. They're more than happy to extend the territoriatility of their laws with little regard -- despite that if any other country tried to extend their laws in the same way, the US would be screaming bloody murder.

AT&T's decision to do this affects way more people than the number of people who are going to be asked to agree to this privacy policy. It's probably going affect me personally, and I don't have a business relationship with them. And probably a whole lot of other people.

Re:It's time to take action.

[quantum bit]

Does Vonage encrypt their traffic?

There's a good chance that your Internet traffic gets routed over an AT&T-controlled network at some point...

Re:It's time to take action.

[hackstraw]

Anytime anybody calls me using AT&T, my phone number appears in those records. And since I am not an AT&T customer, I have not agreed to their privacy policy. Is there any legal remedy for this?

All "privacy policies" are bullshit. They all say at the end of them something in legalese like: "We reserve the right to change our mind at any time".

Personally, I believe that _WE_ as individuals should create our own privacy policy and make businesses/corps sign it.

The problem is that no business or corporation or whatever would sign our privacy policy. The rights of individuals have been officially lost as far as I can tell.

Re:It's time to take action.

[megaditto]

From GP:

Also explain to [legislators] that your privacy is important to you and that you want them to support as many privacy bills as they can.

Currently the mantra If you are not a terrorist/paedophile/Mexican, you have nothing to hide and you'll have no privacy when the terrorists win seems to be the flavor of the day.

Or as one prominent FoxNews commentator puts it, the American People would rather the Govt. collected their records than their remains.

 

Of course, if that doesn't work, just ditch AT&T. I know there is enough competition out there to cripple them.

As the parent (bleh-of-the-huns) said, such a move will not impact ATT's bottom line. If anything, it will save them bandwidth costs as those customers that tend to be privacy-aware also tend to consume more of their all-you-can-eat subscription plans than the sheeople customers.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Firehed]

Using an ISP that makes use of AT&T's infrastructure? Hoo-boy, what a change.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Mister Whirly]

If I am not a terrorist/pedophile/Mexican (and I am not), they have no reason to be spying on me...

Re:It's time to take action.

[hyfe]

All "privacy policies" are bullshit. They all say at the end of them something in legalese like: "We reserve the right to change our mind at any time".

Yes, they are very carefull not to stick anything like this into the actual contracts.

If you want privacy, have the government enact laws (feel free to copy as much as you want from our Scandinavian ones, privacy/consumer laws seem to be things we're reasonably good at). On the other hand, if the government is the problem, it's your own bloody fault, you (plural) elected it; vote something else next time.

Re:It's time to take action.

[cayenne8]

"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.

• Tor - For anonymous browsing
• Freenet
• Anonymous Email (look for Nym section)
• Free Proxy servers (some https and anon listed)
• Set up and use Mixmaster anon remailers

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.

Re:It's time to take action.

[TubeSteak]

What if you can't change? Live in a place where there is exactly one provider of broadband? Think you'll give up your high-speed just to try and punish AT&T?

A lot of people get by with satellite connection.

I'm not sure why so many people have the notion that DSL & cable are the last word when it comes to broadband.

A satellite connection brings telephone service, TV and the internet to many parts of the world that would otherwise have nothing other than a radio phone.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I live in a whole different country (Canada), and my cell-phone company (Rogers) is associated with AT&T. Which probably means that some if not all of my own damned information is probably going to flow south of the border. Which fscking Congressman am I going to fskcing contact to complain about this? Oh, wait, that would be absolutely fsking noone, that's who.

Yours. If it affects Canadian citizens, it's the job of the Canadian elected officials to be concerned about it. In fact, it's probably much easier to convince your MPs and prime minister this is a problem than to convince our congressmen and president. Your government has some ability to influence America's foreign policy through diplomacy. In other words, I'd say you have as much of a chance of fixing this as I do...

For that matter, you can complain to Rogers as well. If somehow you succeed in getting a big company to listen to consumers, one big company will certainly listen to another if they think their business relationship is at stake.

Re:It's time to take action.

[quantum bit]

You're preaching to the choir here. Most of the network related programs I use operate with ssh as their transport layer (unison for file sync, svn+ssh for source code repo and other versioned storage).

I also operate my own mail server/domain, which most of my friends and family have accounts on. I allow ONLY SSL-protected connections, so no plaintext POP3 passwords flying about. As far as they're concerned it's only 1 extra checkbox to click so it's no big deal. SMTP+AUTH+SSL for sending.

Granted, that won't help for sending messages to the outside as they transit unencrypted at some point, but at least we can email each other in relative security. If the NSA wastes a few weeks of processor time just to find out what my lunch plans were last Friday, serves 'em right.

Grant it....it will slow you up a bit

Unless you're talking about initial setup, at the bandwidth levels that most consumer accounts have, I have never seen an appreciable slowdown due to encryption. My modest 266-Mhz router can saturate a 3Mb link with VPN traffic.

Even on my laptop where I do full-disk encryption (GELI on FreeBSD -- built in and it was cake to set up), I can still get upwards of 20MB/s disk I/O, which isn't significantly worse than the el-cheapo drive that's in there can manage without it.

Re:It's time to take action.

[voice_of_all_reason]

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

Re:It's time to take action.

[kalirion]

And how long do you think before this sort of encryption becomes illegal? Wasn't there some bill/law in the UK that you have to provide the government with all your private keys or face jail time?

Re:It's time to take action.

[rgmoore]

Currently the mantra If you are not a terrorist/paedophile/Mexican, you have nothing to hide

I'm not doing anything wrong when I take a shower or use the toilet, but that doesn't mean that it's OK for the government to monitor me while I'm doing so.

Re:It's time to take action.

[greg_barton]

I hate to say this, but the only way to stop this is through gov intervention (I wont say regulation because I hate regulation)

Ain't it funny how folks hate regulation until they want something regulated?

Welcome to the left side of the aisle, buddy. I hope you don't hate Liberals. You're one of us now. :)

Re:It's time to take action.

[silphium]

US has unique problems. Last time I came back from Dallas I had to swerve my car hundreds of times to avoid the numerous flag burnings all up and down I-35 (or was that just the combination of Jack Daniels and cold medicine kicking in?) We should support our president in protecting the American flag from the armies of satanic liberals lined up to vomit on this symbol of our freedom. Even worse, gays are destroying marriage. As one Fox news commentator pointed out the other day, next thing will be marriage to snakes (already performed in some Christian sects). Marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman until divorce decreee and property settlement do they part. The president and our congress are going to amend the US Constitution to preserve marriages for destruction by more conventional means (divorce on the grounds of adultery is a personal favorite).

Re:It's time to take action.

[cayenne8]

"Wasn't there some bill/law in the UK that you have to provide the government with all your private keys or face jail time?"

Well, one way to maybe at least get around having to 'have keys' for email. You could set up a nym server, that instead of mailing the mail to you...sent it to a newsgroup like alt.anonymous. Only you would know the subject for your messages, and have the encryption key to decrypt it.

I'd think the govt. in order to prove you needed to turn a key over to them...would need evidence of something you have that is encrypted?

At the very least...they could get all your keys, but, would never know where to get your messages...

:-)

Re:It's time to take action.

[ksheff]

I-35? I was probably the 2nd-hand smoke from all the drug abusers along that route.

Re:It's time to take action.

[Moofie]

"You did in effect elect your government"

I am one person. I cast one vote. I didn't elect crap.

"You have an open ballot"

What country are you talking about again?

"In other words, stop with this "The devil made me do it." garbage,"

Huh?

"and vote conscientiously, instead of for more bling, like 99% of you are doing now."

Who are you arguing with? It's sure not me. And where are you seeing 99% voter turnouts?

Re:It's time to take action.

[Money for Nothin']

<sarcasm>Great! I'll get mom, dad, and my popular sister with 60 of her bestest friends on AIM using anonymous email and Freenet in no time!</sarcasm>

Seriously though, the reason these apps haven't taken-off is because they face a chicken-and-egg problem: they aren't standards de facto or de jure.

I've tried getting my friends to use encrypted AIM, via GAIM, Trillian, etc.. Of course they don't use it, (except for another Slashdotter friend of mine): it's "too hard" and (so they say) if you have nothing to hide, then what's the concern over privacy about? (and then I sigh: "He who does not learn from the past, is doomed to repeat it...")

I have relatives who are privacy nuts, and one close to me is even somewhat technically-competent and very well-educated. Yet, mention "PGP", and his eyes glaze over.

If even the privacy-concerned intelligentsia don't want to put forth the effort to protect their privacy, then isn't the battle, as a defacto matter, basically lost?

I think privacy is, has, and will always be, a lost cause. It takes:

• Political and/or economic/business intelligence to understand its value
• A historian's knowledge to understand the historical examples of privacy loss
• Mathematical sophistication to have a theoretical conception of the potential growth in instances of knowledge of one's personal information by others via the network effects of private information's spread
• A network-connected computer geek's (like most of us Slashdotters) understanding of how quickly that information actually *does* spread on the Internet to understand and demonstrate the reality of the privacy situation

Few people outside of many computer scientists, and some in the hard sciences and math, and maybe a few lawyers, are competent to fully-grasp the implications of privacy loss. Most people are not so intelligent, nor nearly patient enough to understand the subject -- and so, most people don't give a rat's ass.

The reality of privacy around the world is that Scott McNeely was right some 10 years ago, when he proclaimed that "privacy is dead." I cannot think of a single period in time in which the U.S. or Britain have undergone periods in which privacy could be said to have generally *increased*. [1] Germany arguably improved after the fall of East German socialism, having eliminated the Stasi in the process, but that's like switching from a Yugo to a GM-made econocar for one's personal transportation -- it's a big improvement, but still very far from what is wanted.

Those of us who care about privacy can and do use such applications. The rest of the unwashed masses will be tracked and eventually hunted-down by governments, corporations, and sophisticated black-market criminal organizations like the goddamn cattle they are (and, if East German, Iraqi, Chinese, North Korean, and American communist history -- as well as the history of various black market businesses (drug cartels, the Mafia, etc.) -- is any indicator, murdered much the same).

It doesn't help either that privacy apps have typically not worked particularly-well. Freenet is a great example: it hogs RAM and CPU and in the end, content-retrieval is painfully-slow. Not to mention that Freenet, like PGP, is basically a big red flashing neon sign to law-enforcement suggesting a high probability of illegal activity (and I think those of us who genuinely run/ran it for the political purpose of keeping free-speech and privacy alive really are/were in the minority -- just as those with whom you can talk intelligently to on USENET, or anywhere else on the Internet or in real life, are in the minority)...

[1] Then again, how does one measure privacy? By the number of surveillance cameras, public and private? By the number of records per individual being analyzed out of databases? By the number of doors kicked-down on the basis of information obtained via a breach of privacy? By th

Did they revampt the company name?

[ToxikFetus]

Did they also fix the part of the privacy policy to say: "AT&T (a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Security Agency)"

Any teeth to these?

[dr_dank]

Do privacy polices have any real legal meaning to them? Companies write them, I don't think they'll punish themselves for violating them.

Re:Any teeth to these?

[gEvil (beta)]

No, a company will most likely not punish themselves for violating their privacy policy. However, my understanding is that they do constitute legally binding agreements with regards to what they do with your information. If the company is found to have violated the agreement that was presented to you, then you do have legal grounds to pursue them for damages. Of course, IANAL, so the preceding may be completely wrong.

Re:Any teeth to these?

[qbzzt]

The privacy policy is part of the contract. A company that violated its privacy policy, in a way that could be proven at court, could be sued. It's not a very strong guarantee (guess who can afford the better lawyers), but it's something.

Re:Any teeth to these?

[AuMatar]

Any policy they can change at will without requiring you to sign an greement has no binding force. At best, you could sue for misrepresentation if they break it. Its definitely not breach of contract.

Well, I would not be surprised...

[Bananatree3]

if the other telcos started doing the same thing. In the beginning they simply said all their interactions were "classified" with the governement, building a huge smokescreen with which to hide behind. Now they have to deal with lawsuits, and they slip this into their privacy statement to stymie the 'suits. Knowing how telcos really like to avoid such suits I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T has started a fad.

Reminding you once again...

[Jerf]

Reminding you once again that any privacy policy that includes the clause that it can be changed at any time with minimal notification and no consent is no privacy policy at all.

(To be fair, the linked policy does have a nod towards "materially different" changes to the privacy policy. But guess who decides what "materially different" is...?)

Time for the Privacy Act

[Mad Dog Manley]

As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"

Don't you see, AT&T is doing this for you, the valued customer. It is in your best interests. Don't you want to be kept safe from the evil0rz criminals?

In Canada, the Privacy Act restricts the ability of corporations to share private information. Admittedly it's not perfect, but it appears to be better than what exists in the United States.

Re:Time for the Privacy Act

[Mad Dog Manley]

They're not protecting their customers, they're protecting themselves.

That's not all. The wording in the old privacy policy said:

the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process to the extent required and/or permitted by law"

New policy:

the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process"

Looks like the law isn't important to them anymore.

Re:Time for the Privacy Act

[Grrr]

Thank you - I was wondering how they could use the phrase "legal process" and resist the temptation to add a little winking smiley or something immediately after it...

<grrr />

Re:Time for the Privacy Act

[pilgrim23]

It seems to me that we as a consumer should also be able to include a "privacy clause": Something like "By accepting my payment for your service you agree to..______ (insert legal weasel words here) or be subject to _____ (more weasel)" as an adendum on a check.

*Sigh of relief*

[shumacher]

I was shopping for a new ISP this morning, and AT&T lost out only by failing to have a particularly local dialup number.

Re:*Sigh of relief*

[friedmud]

You know that you _can_ have a local phone... with _no_ long distance whatsoever right??

This is why my wife and I did in order to keep 911 service... even though we used our cell-phones 99% of the time. We've since dumped even that... moving to 100% cell-phones... the main reason being that the home phone was nothing but a spam machine.... we never gave the number out to anyone yet _many_ companies stilled called night and day trying to sell us stuff. We no longer have that problem...

Friedmud

How is this legal?

[AWhiteFlame]

Can they really legally say, "Welp, even though it's your personal data, we reserve the right to do whatever we want with it if it benefits us or our partners." ?

Re:How is this legal?

[stratjakt]

Yes, because they are legitimate business records.

Best Buy is allowed to keep all your credit card purchases on file, and use those records however they see fit in the course of business - including selling your purchasing habits to a marketing firm for analysis.

If you don't like it, tough titties. Move to a developing nation that doesn't have technology yet.

Re:How is this legal?

[richg74]

Yes, they can do just that.

While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T.

This really summarizes the legal problems with privacy here in the US. Although the data that people collect on you is "personal to you", it almost always, legally, belongs to whoever collected it. The hodgepodge of Federal and state laws doesn't help. For example, here in Virginia, my medical records are the property of my doctor. It was only relatively recently that legislation was passed that gives me the statutory right to see my own medical records.

This also relates directly to the more-or-less careless approach many firms take to protecting personal data. If the data belongs to them, they are that much more insulated from any legal consquences of losing it.

Bruce Schneier has discussed this in a number of his blog posts and essays.

Re:How is this legal?

[gbobeck]

Can they really legally say, "Welp, even though it's your personal data, we reserve the right to do whatever we want with it if it benefits us or our partners." ?

I am not a lawyer, but from what I have seen on the web, it is perfectly ok and legal provided they don't include "Nyah, Nyah Nyah, Nyah Nyah.", "Neener Neener, or "Smoochy Boochy" at the end of the policy.

Re:How is this legal?

[mrchaotica]

You know, 10 years ago the only people worried about privacy were those crazy militia guys in Montana. Nowadays, they not only seem sane, but increasingly look like geniuses!

Re:How is this legal?

[voice_of_all_reason]

If you don't like it, tough titties.

Paying in cash, not accepting value cards, and lying through your teeth on any papers they have you fill out (like rebates) also works remarkably well.

Re:How is this legal?

[cayenne8]

"Best Buy is allowed to keep all your credit card purchases on file, and use those records however they see fit in the course of business - including selling your purchasing habits to a marketing firm for analysis. If you don't like it, tough titties. Move to a developing nation that doesn't have technology yet."

Or....you could just use cash.

:-)

So, does this mean we can get out of our contracts

[mrchaotica]

...with the company formerly known as Cingular, since they're changing the terms of the agreement after the fact?

Did you get the memo?

[GonzoTech]

The privacy policy clearly states that the National Security Agency, NSA, is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T.

Thank you!

[RingDev]

The best way to force AT&T to change their game is to vote with your all-mighty dollar. A single dollar-voting customer is worth any number of petitions and angry letters.

-Rick

Re:Thank you!

[voice_of_all_reason]

"Best" is such an overused modifier. How can you be sure that would really be the best way?

I'd imagine the freekin' Hand of God coming out of the sky and obliterating AT&T headquarters might spur them to make the change just a wee bit faster.

Ouch.

[theskipper]

That does it. I'm sending back my "AT&T Best Friends Forever" ring.

Perfect opportunity for me to get off my duff.

[(H)elix1]

With my bride and I both using cell phones as our primary line, I've put off canceling them on my POTS line for long distance service. Well no more - the $8USD/month (was $3, but it looks like it jumped up with extra fees) just to have the service is not a lot of cash, but at least I'll get a chance to give AT&T a big old FU and the horse you road in on. The rep had the brass to say this was something to strengthen my 'privacy', then started on a song and dance about September 11th.

For those in the US, 1-800-222-0300 option 6 gets you where you need to go. Expect a 30 minute (or more) wait time.

Fuckers...

Contract Violation

[Doc Ruby]

In most states, actually operating under the terms of a contract, even if it's not signed by any party, gives that contract full force and effect.

If I used AT&T for anything covered by that privacy "policy", I'd sue them for unilaterally changing the terms of the contract without my consent. If I were a lawyer, I'd construct a class of everyone whose contract they're breaching.

Unless the old privacy policy says "AT&T can unilaterally change any terms of this policy without notice at any time", in which case I'd be a fool to think it was anything but an invitation to screw me whenever they want.

Re:Contract Violation

[ceejayoz]

Unless the old privacy policy says "AT&T can unilaterally change any terms of this policy without notice at any time"

The number of large companies lacking that phrase in their privacy policies can likely be counted on a limbless war victim's fingers.

Furthermore

[aepervius]

Do you know many legal agreement between two private party, and which can be changed at any time by one party, even absolving this party from any previous legal agreemeent with the other party, without involving this second party ? Me neither.

wait... the cable co isn't tracking what I watch?!

[legal_asshole]

"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, [...]"

Did anybody else find that the most shocking/suprising part of the article? I had just always assumed that the primary purpose of the digital boxes the cable company gives you was so that they could have more control over tracking what you're watching and when, but apparently my secret American Idol fetish is safe (at least from the cable company's datawharehouse).

What !!

[cdogbert]

All your data are belong to us. You have no chance to complain, make your time.

Virus ownership?

[Sebastopol]

Does that mean if I download a virus from an AT&T pipe that they own the virus too, so if it damanges my machine I can sue them, or maybe I can hold AT&T responsible for "their data" corrupting "my system" that I purchased?

Re:Effective tool

[Tackhead]

> The NSA terrorist surveillance program approved by President Bush is an effective tool for law enforcement to identify and break up terrorist activity before it can metastasize again on these shores and cause 9/11 style death and destruction. A large majority of the American electorate approves this action. By all means write to your representative on this issue. That is the American way. Then take your place on the minority side of the issue while President Bush kicks the bloody hell out of radical islam.

The NSA terrorist surveillance program approved by President Clinton II is an effective tool for law enforcement to identify and break up terrorist activity before it can can metastasize again on these shores and cause Okalahoma-style death and destruction. A large majority of the American electorate approves this action. By all means write to your representative on this issue. That is the American way. Then take your place on the minority side of the issue while President Clinton II thanks your half of the Party for giving her the tools she needs to kick the bloody hell out of the Second Amendment fanatics.

(And after 8 years of Republicans arguing against Stasi-like surveillance of fundie Christian groups, the Democratic wing of the Party will power over to the Republican wing of the Party, and the ratchet having gone another 360 degrees tighter...)

Actual policies...

[dthulson]

Here are links to the new policy and the current policy.

Relationship to NSA Tracking

[tabdelgawad]

I was going to submit the following Salon article to the front page, but this will have to do

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_n sa/index_np.html

You have to wonder if the two stories are related.

Re:Effective tool

[evileyetmc]

The NSA terrorist surveillance program approved by President Bush is an effective tool for law enforcement ...

Really? I didn't realize that, since I have not heard of one terrorist activity being prevented by the NSA. After all, what are wiretapped grandmas going to do?

I have no problem with wiretaps, if they are warranted. These days, it is not difficult to get the warrant...you could just show some evidence that the person may be linked to a terrorist organization, and wahlah, you have a warrant. All that I ask is that the get the warrant first, or at least get one period.

Oh, and if you can show me where this wiretapping has been more successful than traditional techniques, I'd be all ears. Until then I will continue to not jump on the 'kill the jihad' bandwagon. This country needs at least a few sane heads.

Charter Communicationsbasically does this also

[xlr8ed]

15. RIGHT TO MONITOR

Neither Charter nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings (including, but not limited to, e-mail, newsgroup, and instant message transmission as well as materials available on the personal web pages and online storage features) made on the Service. However, Charter and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with the Subscriber Agreement and any other applicable agreements and policies.

Charter laid this out about 15 months ago, basically stating that they have the right to watch and record anything you are doing under the guise of "protecting" itself

sheep

[non]

i hate regulation...
privacy policy...
etc.

are you people stupid? you must be, the government just announced it spent 30 million of your money to buy exactly this type of information. in my mind thats the ultimate indignation, they broke the law, and operated against my interests using my cash. if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are...

Re:sheep

[QCompson]

if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are...

Good point, but did you see American Idol this season? It was awesome!

Re:sheep

[Red Flayer]

"are you people stupid? "

No.

"you must be, the government just announced it spent 30 million of your money to buy exactly this type of information. in my mind thats the ultimate indignation, they broke the law, and operated against my interests using my cash."

Yes, we must be stupid because the government did something we don't like.

"if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are..."

Well, it sure as hell beats sitting around and carping about people carping about the problem. How do you know that no one posting here isn't making serious efforts to get these problems fixed? How do you know whether or not I met with my NJ state senator last week regarding this issue? How do you know that I haven't been calling my US Senator to discuss, following up with letters?

You don't know jack about what actions other slahdot contributors are doing, so pipe down.

In short, by your definition of stupid, you're twice as stupid as the people you complain about. Why don't you take some action instead of sitting on your rear? Or even better, organize people to take action as a group instead of whinging about the complainers?

a big BEND OVER to any percieved competitors

[Thud457]

"I have changed the agreement. Pray I don't change it further."

privacy?

[blitz487]

'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.'

In other words, their "privacy" policy is they can do whatever they please without limit with your information.

How far AT&T have fallen...

[SourceVisigoth]

Over the past 30 years they've gone from a monolithic corporate/government agency that owns your phone, line, and soul to a decentralized oligarchy that owns your phone, line, and soul... back to a umm... hrrmmm..

Re:VOIP modem to Out of country ISP?

[Oswald]

Well, it's interesting, but it kind of misses the point. I don't have anything to hide from the NSA; that's not why I want them to stop spying on Americans. I want them to stop spying on Americans because stopping is the right, legal thing to do. Attempting to circumvent their procedures might give be fun in a "stickin' it to the man" sort of way, but it doesn't really take us where we want to go.

Why does contract law allow this?

[Valdrax]

I've always wondered exactly why contract law allows for one (but not both) of the parties to arbitrarily define the terms of what either party is allowed to do under the contract. What's the point of allowing an agreement to be binding that can be completely subverted in meaning at any time?

Re:Why does contract law allow this?

[winnabago]

I did exactly this with Verizon, after raising SMS rates 8 months into a 2 year contract (with notification), I objected in writing and asked to be terminated, or at least held to the original terms. They told me that I would be charged the termination fee anyway, because it was at my request. Even though I didn't agree to the new conditions, they said I agreed to such "minor" changes at the beginning. And my rate is not contractually bound, so it's subject to their whim, apparently.

To further complicate matters, the original contract was printed on a thermal receipt-type printer, and my copy has since faded to illegibility. It didn't have the complete language anyway, to the extent that where I signed, it referred to my agreement to a copy of the "current" terms, as available on the website. These have obviously changed over the last two years, so what did I agree to?

Is it even an option to take someone like this to small claims court?

Colluding with the government

[Anonymous Bullard]

Although most Americans seem to accept this kind of erosion of personal privacy in the name of comrade Bush's long war of terror or simply as the undeniable birthright of large corporations, only a handful understands that these kind of US policies are helping spread the big chill across other continents as well.

Forgetting about hypocrisy for a moment, there was a time when the US would advocate and to an extent even represent personal freedoms in most other parts of the world. Now it's all empty talk in inaugural speeches about the great USA is helping oppressed people regain their freedoms but as it happens most of those people desperately needing american support just happen to be oppressed by so-called allies in this "war of terror, countries like China etc.

For those of us who actually live under undemocratic governments, the fact that american telecoms are helping the government track people and their interests is making it painfully easy for other freedom-hating regimes to impose similar or worse policies which only help chill the personal freedoms even further.

Corporate Espionage

[W.Mandamus]

"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."

So lets see:
If I work at AT&T and a headhunter calls me at work or at home the corporation to check my phone records to "protect its legitimate business interests".

If I am a competitor of AT&T's, AT&T can find out what VC's I've been calling to "protect its legitimate business interests".

If I am sueing AT&T, AT&T can check my phone records to find out when I called my lawyer to "protect its legitimate business interests".

If I sign a contract with AT&T to provide me with my competitors phone records AT&T can do it to "protect its legitimate business interests".

You know if I were in charge of secruity for a major corporation I would be extremely worried about this.

Re:Corporate Espionage

[It's all Krista's Fa]

Lots of corporations do internal handling of the phone network. So once a call disappears into company Foo's switching system, it's lost to the sending system.

So 555-555-1111 and 555-555-1112 both appear as a call to 'Foo', where only Foo knows to whom those phone lines route.

Public wireless for anything illegal

[NineNine]

No big deal... if anybody wants to do anything illegal online, or even look at questionable material, it's simply a matter of using your local municipal wireless network. The only thing the feds will find out will be the MAC address and the time said content was accessed.

Re:Public wireless for anything illegal

[tddoog]

Then spoof your MAC address.

Re:Public wireless for anything illegal

[EvanED]

Each Mac Address is traceable to a specific manufacturer, who can then determine the lot number your card from. Once they determine the lot number, they can determine who they sold that lot to ... continuing on, they contact the laptop manufacturer ... record of purchase ... your ass in a sling.

Which is COMPLETELY foolproof, especially with all the networking equipment out there that lets you flash your MAC address.

Oh wait...

Both are meaningless on their own.

[Valdrax]

A single dollar-voting customer is worth any number of petitions and angry letters.

You're right. A single dollar-voting customer is just as effective as an angry letter, which is to say that they're both pointless and empty gestures. Even a petition is worthless if all people do is grumble and then go back to being good little consumers.

Now a petition that gets a critical mass of people to commit to terminating their service... Ah, now that's actually worth something.

A single voter is as meaningless as a single rain drop. A movement can be a torrential flood. So, tell me now: are you trying to help build a storm front, or are you just making puddles?

Re:Both are meaningless on their own.

[RingDev]

The problem is that the vast majority of petition signers are not willing to perform action in association with the petition. I wish I had the cites handy to back that statement up, but that paper was from a few years ago.

In short, 165,000 users signing a petition, but still paying their bills means nothing to AT&T.

10,000 users canceling their service and citing the PP as the primary reason will likely invoke a reaction.

You are correct, it is about critical mass. 10 dollar-voters will not make a difference, but 10,000 petition-signers will also not make a difference. 10,000 dollar-voters will likely make a difference, as would 10,000,000 petition-signers. Is it easier to come up with 10 million people to threaten to vote with their dollar, or 10 thousand people who will vote with their dollar?

-Rick

Re:So, does this mean we can get out of our contra

[Valdrax]

No. Your contract says that they can change their policies at any time, and that you'll like it... b-tch!

Small Business and Corporations?

[fallen1]

If AT&T can unilaterally change the privacy policy as it applies to users of those services (primarily individuals) what is stopping them from doing to same thing to small business as well as big business/coporations? Hmm? Lawyers? - perhaps. If I had a small business that used AT&T in any way, shape, form, or fashion I would be IMMEDIATELY and deeply concerned about the privacy of my business documents that are being transmitted over AT&T's network - by any means (T1/T3, OC3, Frame Relay, VPN, etc. - even encrypted communications). Suddenly all of my VERY sensitive corporate secrets become the property of AT&T? My e-mails are all logged? My browsing and viewing habits as CEO of said corporation are now catalogued and kept in a database at AT&T's Galactic Data Core? As a private citizen of the United States of America and as a corporate employee I say, unequivocally, FUCK THAT.

Every concerned citizen and individual should rail against these changes in their policy - even if you don't use their service now. Write to them and explain, calmly and rationally, why you would never use their service and how you will do everything in your power to explain to family and friends why THEY should not use their service either. Dissatisfied people talk to loads of other people. Pissed off people talk to loads of other people. ANYTHING negative gets spread, on average, 10 times more than positive things do. When was the last time someone you know went to the doctor and said they had a great visit? Probably can't remember that, but I can guarantee that _someone_ you know has been to the doctor/dentist/etc. in the past 2 weeks and has vented a complaint about "I had to wait FOREVER to even see the doctor and he was only in there for 5 minutes" or something along those lines. Will a write-in campaign from both people who are on their service as well as those who aren't work? MAYBE. Yes, capital maybe since is always an If. Corporations tend to be a little more responsive to loads of negative press and negative write-ins than the goverment of the USA seems to be. If a good many small businesses and larger businesses/corporations jump on the write-in bandwagon too (especially those affected by HIPAA, Sa-Ox and other "privacy" concerns) then I'd give it a good chance.

Not to mention who did NOT see this coming? Any company that uses the frigging DEATH STAR as a corporate logo has to be aiming for world domination somehow ;-)

Re:Effective tool

[PDHoss]

you could just show some evidence that the person may be linked to a terrorist organization, and wahlah, you have a warrant

TERRORIST KEYWORD PROBABILITY: 92.89% IP LOGGED. FEDERAL FISTING IMMINENT.

WTF?

[plasmacutter]

WTF is an ad for "hands off the internet" doing on slashdot?

As many erudite posters have pointed out this is nothing more than an astroturfing campaign by big telcos.. why is slashdot giving these people ad space?

Re:WTF?

[Jherek Carnelian]

As many erudite posters have pointed out this is nothing more than an astroturfing campaign by big telcos.. why is slashdot giving these people ad space?

Why not? It sure is better than running the advert in front of people who will take it at face value. At least on slashdot it gets a firm rebuttal and helps pay for the place.

Re:In other words...

[gstoddart]

As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests,

Translation: "Everything has its price, including our souls and our integrity as a member of the private sector."

Soul? Integrity? We're talking about a friggin' corporation, they don't have souls or integrity. If the steering comittee/board/whatever votes that it is in the best interests of the shareholders/themselves to do something, that's about the full extent of actual morality which applies.

A company could have a mission statement which mandates that the board behave within a proscribed set of moral codes (like "The Body Shop" not testing on animals), but one should never actually acribe moral actions to a corporation. Least of all, one as large as AT&T.

AT& T has left me no choice...

[x-vere]

Back to tin cans connected by string.

Re:Where is the privacy policy?

[Bananatree3]

Note that the policy you link to has this line on the top of it: "Effective 06/16/06"

The article says that the new policy will be effective Friday, and since the article was published today, this equates to this upcoming Friday, 06/23/06. This probably means that the author of the article somehow got his hands on a copy of the new policy and that we'll have to wait til Friday to see it on the SBC frontpage, UNLESS they have it buried somewhere's in their press release statements.

Why bother with a privacy policy at all?

[gorbachev]

Wouldn't it just be cheaper for AT&T to rewrite the privacy policy as:

"You have no privacy. Your data is ours. You have no rights."

Rather than spend tens of thousands of dollars to pay lawyers to draft some marketdroir-laden crap everyone knows is complete bullshit.

I'm so hoping I'll get contacted by an AT&T salesperson in the next few months. I think I'd enjoy the conversation tremendously.

Have you ever...

[botlrokit]

Have you ever searched for a historical interpretation of the philosophy of Muhammad?
Have you ever posted a derisive comment about George Bush on a forum?
Have you ever had interrogators knock on your door at 2 in the morning?

You Will.

And the company that will bring it to you?

AT&T

Re:Effective tool

[qazwart]

So far, the only thing that the current administration has done with the information the NSA has gleemed from their taps is track down journalists in order to find the government sources of their leaks.

Unless you equate a free press with terrorism or goverment employees with terrorists, I'm afraid I cannot see the connection.

We are repeating history. In the 1960s, the goverment expanded its role in domestic surveillance in order to fight "left wing terrorism" by radical groups like the Weathermen. Instead, the FBI spent most of their time spying on Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Congressional opponents, and under Nixon people on his personal "enemies list". The Church Commission recommended much of the restrictions that the Patriot Act trampled over in order to prevent government surveillance on citizens who were using legitimate means of opposing government policy.

Now, we removed these restrictions, and guess what? The government is again using its powers to spy on you and me, and not so much on "Islamic Terrorists". After all, the Islamic terrorists are a pretty smart bunch and probably already figured out not to use electronic communications to contact each other directly. Most of their communication now takes place on websites outside of the United States jurisdiction and most of the conversations are encrypted and coded. Users are anonymous and use public computers in various Internet Cafes making it almost impossible to track down these users. Remote logins, foreign anonymizers, and Tor networks make even domestic users hard to trace.

Re:Effective tool

[ceejayoz]

Hell, FISA allows retroactive applications for warrants! All concerns about the speed of the court system at granting warrants sorta go out the window when you can do first, ask later.

There's also the fun stat that they've turned down 5 of 19,000 requests.

If the Administration can't work within a system that allows them to ask permission after the fact and have a 99.9736842% chance of approval, just what are they hiding?

Re:Mod Mister Whirly's up plz

[Mister Whirly]

Nah, I don't have to. They already spied on me and came to that conclusion...

That is my point exactly. My arugment works just the same as yours - they are both completely stupid and illogical. The only difference is the US government actually supports your statement...

hotburqa.com here I come

[DesertWolf0132]

Since it is impossible to have your IP traffic travel anywhere on the net without hitting AT&T copper somewhere it is time to flood them with a flood of false positive red flags. Everyone on the net should surf the two things the government has shown interest in of late, porn and the middle east. Visit Al-Jazerra at least 20 times a day. Just keep the browser open and refresh. Make sure you visit the Arabic version. Then go straight from there to porn. If your significant other gets on you about it tell them you are defending liberty. Damn the man! Save the empire! Jihad for the destruction of the purple dinosaur!

Re:Mindless tautologies

[voice_of_all_reason]

Lucky for you I have my "tactical strategy against islamists" manual with me.

Step 1: Pull all facets of our government out of the middle east. Completely. Let private enterprise handle all trade and relations, under the laws of each respective country.

Step 2: Immediately cease all spending allocated to national security. Shutter the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Let states handle law enforcement. Return all money to The People.

Step 3: US Citizens love their government. "Islamists" lose the major impetus for hating the Great Western Satan. Profit.

Re:Effective tool

[RabidMonkey]

Really? I didn't realize that, since I have not heard of one terrorist activity being prevented by the NSA. After all, what are wiretapped grandmas going to do?

I'm not a fan of the NSA, or any agency that listens to my phone calls etc, but in their defense ... do you think if they caught someone, they'd have a big news paper article about it and have interviews on CNN? I suspect they'll be really quiet about it, so people don't know just how much they listen to, how they do it, etc.

I suspect they've heard a lot of things that has led to many investigations/arrests etc ... but we'll never hear about it.

t.

I guess AT+T is no longer a "Common Carrier"

[denis-The-menace]

If AT+T claims ownership of all traffic flowing on its network, then all special interest groups will finally have somebody to sue with big $$ when something "bad" is found on the Internet.

AT+T will now be a lightning rod for lawsuits, frivolous or not.

Re:Boycott by consumers?

[faedle]

As the construction supervisor said to Arthur Dent referring to the amount of damage his equipment would recieve if he allowed them to simply run over Mr. Dent, "none at all."

AT&T is now the ILEC for the majority of America's most populous state (California), and recieves probably the majority of their day-to-day business from the Government itself. Even if 10% of consumers left AT&T for somebody else, they'd laugh it off: after all, most of those consumers are purchasing low-profit and high cost services anyway.

Besides, who are you going to go to? Where are you going to get local dialtone from if you live in Los Angeles or San Francisco? Go ahead. Buy it from a CLEC. If you can find one still selling service, guess who's gonna still get the revenue for the copper loop? Okay, so I'll go get service from the cable company. Oh, right. Comcast. A company that AT&T owns stock in.

Yep. You can run, but you can't hide.

Re:Effective tool

[Lord Kano]

I have no problem with wiretaps, if they are warranted. These days, it is not difficult to get the warrant...you could just show some evidence that the person may be linked to a terrorist organization, and wahlah, you have a warrant.

I think that you meant "Voilà", it means "Here".

LK

Obligatory Car Analogy

[Kattana]

Had some interesting points come in a discussion about this and thought I would share.

Soultron: your bandwidth stream is not your property
Soultron: it's their property on their network
Kattana: Is your car on a road not your property because you dont own the road?
Quaoar: eh, analogies between information and tangible objects tend to break down
Kattana: Is your mail not your mail when it leaves your mailbox?
Quaoar: better
Kattana: much better, since its illegal to open mail in most cases.
Quaoar: of course, the argument there is that mail is handled by a public entity.
Soultron: is a cop allowed to stop your car and inspect it? is the post office allowed to inspect mail?
Kattana: and it contains your information.
Soultron: tampering with mail is only a crime when a private citizen does it
Kattana: cops and post office workers are _goverment_ employees
Quaoar: but the total "privateness" of telcoms is up for debate. They're one of the more involved corporate sectors in government business.
Quaoar: Soul, only if they have probable cause or a warrant/court order/whathaveyou of that sort. On both questions.
Kattana: AT&T is a private entity, they should not be allowed to open your packets any more than your packages.

PS, anyone know what laws apply to private mail carriers such as FedEX? are they even "mail carriers"?
PPS, I am posting chat in a comment posted on /. and that amuses me, if only I had a blog to quote it in.

To Paraphrase...

[nleaf]

AT&T: "Haha! Its our Social Security Number now, bitch!"