Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Announces Plans to Filter Copyright Content
An anonymous reader writes "The LA Times reports that AT&T has announced plans to work with the Hollywood movie studios and major recording labels to implement new content filtering systems on their network. The plans raise many troubling legal issues including privacy concerns, false positive filtering, and liability for failure to filter."
... when AT+T takes down an iTMS download of a purchased movie for being a copy. Which, of course, it would be. Merely one being paid for correctly.
I had been considering switching from Comcast to AT&T as soon as DSL became available at my house... so much for that idea.
Encryption forever!
If Firefox and Apache both made HTTPS their default protocol instead of HTTP, AT&T wouldn't be able to invade any of our private traffic that happens to get routed over their WANs. Then they'd have only their Net Doublecharge, preferential routing between IPs paying their extortion fees, to work against us, and that gambit will likely get killed by the government that otherwise protects AT&T's resurgent monopoly.
If we act now, while we still can, before AT&T and their telco/cableco cartel shuts us down.
--
make install -not war
Would previous attempts at net-neutrality legislation have prevented this?
When AT&T has only Hollywood Movie Companies subscribing to their internet service, they may change their mind about censoring/blocking Zero's & One's. The Almighty Dollar is what dictates any techno and when the money goes, so will the censorship.
As I understand it, the telcos aren't common-carriers with regards to so-called "data services" anyway, so they can perfectly well get away with this. Granted the distinction between a voice service and a data service is technologically non-existent anymore, but from a legal perspective it's still very important (as it happens, I have AT&T's Callvantage VoIP service at home ... which set of laws would apply to AT&T in the case?) That's part of the law that does need to be changed, I think.
Now, whether or not they'll have many customers when it's all over is another story. The moment my ISP starts making decisions for me about what I can and cannot download is the day I find another provider. If there aren't any other providers, then I'm going to drive to Washington, D.C. (probably none of us will be able to actually board aircraft at that point), grab Orrin Hatch and a few other select Congresspeople by their lapels and shake some sense into them.
What's amazing about this is the level of influence the media companies are able to wield, in both the government and private sectors. Honestly, they must have some part of their organization whose only job it is to dig up dirt on Congressmen and corporate CEOs. Otherwise I can't see why AT&T would just roll over on this.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
At the very least if we all start encrypting everything we send, the overall effect will help improve net security.
Ah but SSL/TLS can be detected and they can just block it.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Here's the problem as I see it: AT&T knows that ISPs have to compete on service, price and network superiority. There's not too much room to "add value" to their network (i.e., offer proprietary services that work best on AT&T's network). They're betting that by adding legit content and keeping off 'pirate' content, they can create a network that not-very-expert users who want video-on-demand etc will use, and that their competitors will do this anyway to keep up.
And what they will probably do is aggressively packet-shape so that folk who encrypt traffic will see lousy transfer rates AND lobby for exemptions to common-carrier rules for copyright defense.
It doesn't make too much sense, but hey, no one expects good business from AT&T.
As I understand it, the telcos aren't common-carriers with regards to so-called "data services" anyway, so they can perfectly well get away with this.
This leads me to wonder, if they don't have common-carrier status to data transmission, why hasn't anyone brought the big telcos up for allowing illegal material to go across on their data lines? Seems to me if there wasn't CC status given to data, those types of cases would be slam dunks.
Plus, if they try doing this for copyright violations, what's to keep someone from forcing at&t to follow suit for things like child porn or other illegal content? It can't be too hard to adapt one filtering system to do another task (at least, I'm sure that's how the argument will go.)
The big question is whether this filtering is just for their DSL and F2P customers, or also for the huge chunk of the backbone that they own and operate. The articles that I have read seem to suggest the latter.
Unless you believe that companies (AT&T, Google, MS) and government agencies (Big Brother) have a right to listen in on every conversation you have, review every site you visit, and examine every transaction you make, then either don't let them or stop complaining.
Instead of sending everything by postcard, send everything by envelope (encrypted), and stop expecting every lawyer, politician, company, government agency, and identity thief to respect your privacy.
While I sympathize with your position, cynicism and overall view on this issue, it has nothing to do with technology.
It has been this way for countless generations. Power is not awarded based on merit. It is awarded based on wealth. Show me anyone in a position of power who has not paid their way there.
This will never change, regardless of how many revolutions we may have, it is but one sad component of the tragedy known as the human condition.
[IP address changed for this post to defeat slashdot's asinine 30 minute post flood interval.]
For years I've routinely encrypted as much of my communications as I can (e.g., when I control both ends of the connection) and the overhead is completely invisible.
Real time is the KEY here. They promise to block and not to just detect.
Sure, you can detect ssh, etc, known protocals and block them.
But if today the server encripted an MP3 file with rot13 no computer would automatically detect it as an mp3. And tomarow they just do it different. Tomarrow they make a jpg out of it. Change the extention and Bob's your uncle.
An application is written that everytime it starts it downloads a plugin with todays encription standard. There is no way they could even think of keeping up without breaking things for there customers on a daily basis.
...that in many countries, when a carrier censors content, it automatically loses "common carrier" status and becomes liable for what it carries. In other words, AT&T probably can't be sued right now for movies on their lines, but if they censor those lines and miss something - however accidental - they are liable. In the UK, carriers have been sued into bankrupcy after losing common carrier status. I don't know if this is true in the US, but if it is and someone wants to go digging for gold, they would be doing everyone a huge favour.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I am not a lawyer, but this looks like AT&T would be immune to prosecution for blocking any "pirated"/grey copyrighted content carried over its lines as long as it isn't actually hosting the work. That is, if the work isn't actually on att.com or sbc.*.com, AT&T won't get in trouble for blocking us from it.
Is this right?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
So...actually, I am curious: can you avoid AT&T networks? Maybe Google will need to start using all the dark fiber they were supposedly buying a while back?
The article doesn't mention AT&T as an ISP. It merely states they plan on filtering this content as it runs across their network. Well, the bad news is that most ISP data in the US traverses the AT&T network in the form of optical longhaul systems ( Read that Sonet ) at some point in it's journey. Your ISP leases lines from Company X who, in turn, leases their lines from AT&T. Is similar to when your WoW session is hit with a lag storm and you start yelling at your ISP to ' FIX YOUR SH*T ', when it's actually an optical level issue on lines owned by someone else that is taking the data longhaul across the country. Sprint, AT&T, whatever ) Given the technology that allowed the NSA to split the optical signal so they could watch traffic, I wonder if they're considering applying their ' filtering ' technology in the same manner. In other words, would they act as big brother over all the data packets that travel ' their ' pipes and filter anything they feel is necessary ?
I'm assuming that if ATT goes to the NSA and says "Please help us pass a law that says that stuff can't be encrypted" and the NSA sees low-grade crpyto they will reply "You pussies, we solved that stuff in kindergarden". But if they see high-level crypto, they may start screaming "national security" and do something that is stupid, unconstitutional, or both.
We were too concerned about major-league threats like active man-in-the-middle attacks and not concerned enough about simple, transparent and totally automatic encryption that would still be 100% effective against passive eavesdropping.
As soon as that happens, Cisco et al will start selling specialized boxes that do MITM attacks, can handle OC3 bandwidth, and provide the unencrypted traffic for inspection, filtering, and recording. There would certainly be a lot of demand, as there are lots of network administrators with more-or-less legitimate reasons to want to filter their traffic (university network admins, for instance).
90% of a solution is not a solution.
Or it could be the RIAA/MPAA suggesting to AT&T that cracking down on piracy would be a good way to avoid dealing with hordes of high-priced entertainment industry lawyers for many years....
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Yeah, same thing I see in California, with all manner of charlatans. Weird diets are a big one around here. In Montana, 99% of these weird beliefs would get you laughed out of the state, and the other 1% would get you committed. ;)
Trouble is, some of the charlatans have PhDs** so that gives them credibility, especially among the educated, who don't realise it's perfectly possible to be both educated on one subject, and woefully ignorant of everything else. My favourite to date from one of these PhDs: "Corn ferments in the digestive tract! So you should only eat rice!" (Er, what do you think they make sake from, bamboo??)
** "Piled Higher and Deeper"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Besides, the DMCA is really about the copying of material that is already publicly available to anyone who wants to buy it. It's not about protecting the confidentiality of private conversations. Although most DRM schemes do (ab)use cryptography, the DRM threat model is fundamentally one that cryptography cannot address. Every cryptosystem assumes that the parties trust each other to not reveal plaintext to their enemies, and that the parties possess secrets that the enemies do not have.
DRM violates both assumptions, so any use of crypto by DRM is fatally flawed. If your (potential) enemy has physical possession of all the relevant secrets to decrypt the material (and they must, otherwise they wouldn't buy it), then the cipher is breakable no matter how strong it might be when the keys are secret. So DRM is ultimately impossible at a purely technical level, and therefore it must be backed up by laws.
Cryptography is all about protecting the confidentiality of a private communication between two trustworthy parties against an eavesdropper who doesn't have the keys. And it has become very successful at that objective. We should just use it, routinely and for everything.