Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Denies Censorship, Won't Change Contract
Vox writes "As we discussed here a few days back, AT&T's Terms of Service has very broad language giving them the right to terminate the account of any AT&T Internet service customer who criticizes the company. Ars Technica notes that such broad language is not unusual in ISPs' terms of service, and that AT&T told them they won't be changing the contract. A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions and says that the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs. As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."
Time to play the waiting game.
If all they want to do is assert their right to shut down exploitative sites & users, wouldn't clauses A (violation of Acceptable Use Policy) and B (violation of law/regulation/tariff/etc.) be enough, without clause C (make AT&T look bad)?
Translation:
Even though we can, we won't bust you or censor you... unless we want to, then we have a contract to point at. PLUS, if Uncle Sugar sends in the FBI to snoop you, we can point to the contract that YOU signed, saying we could. So we're indemnified.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'm a fan of the deny and keep option open tactic maybe I'll start subscribing to ATT so I can support creative uses of contracts and the law.
Maybe this can be used to break out of that BS 2-year contract most carriers insist on, without paying nasty early termination fee.
The only reason to use broad statements is so that you have wiggle room later on.
Lawyers love vague contract terms... Judges not so much.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Actually, to me it sounds like an unenforceable clause of the contract that they put in there to be able to strong arm someone even though it may not stand up in court.
contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children
ok, what has airing an opinion (which might not be in favor of the demigods) have to do with the exploitation of children? this is like saying GWB is behind all the bad in this world
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
AT&T sucks
The ACLU won the first round of this legal challenge in August 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in her ACLU v. NSA decision. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in the decision, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
"AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.
A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.
http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html
"Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"
Company Response
Adelphia Communications Declined comment
AOL Time Warner No [1]
AT&T Declined comment
BellSouth Communications No
Cable & Wireless* No response
Cablevision Systems No
CenturyTel No
Charter Communications No [1]
Cingular Wireless No [2]
Citizens Communications No response
Cogent Communications* No [1]
Comcast No
Cox Communications No
EarthLink No
Global Crossing* Inconclusive
Google Declined comment
Level 3* No response
Microsoft No [3]
NTT Communications* Inconclusive [4]
Qwest Communications No [2]
SAVVIS Communications* No response
Sprint Nextel No [2]
T-Mobile USA No [2]
United Online No response
Verizon Communications Inconclusive [5]
XO Communications* No [1]
Yahoo Declined comment
* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers.
[1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law.
[2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations.
[3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey.
[4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law."
[5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."
http://news.com.com/Some+companies+helped+the+NSA%2C+but+which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html
Additional info from the EFF
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php
NO CARRIER
So are we going to have to draft a bill of rights and ask all online providers, from ISP's to online service companies, to sign it? Is that even remotely possible?
Here's a stab at some of the rights I'd like to see protected:
1. You may not restrict the right to access, download, store, manage, edit, and publish my data on the platform and web site of my choosing. Period.
2. You may not terminate my account for political statements, inappropriate language, statements of sexual nature, religious commentary, or statements critical of your service, with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply
Hmm... that's a good start. Any others to add?
-John Mark
Hyperic Community Manager
"Hey, what's this about owing you my first-born child?"
"Oh, that's standard contract language. Don't worry about it. We won't exercise it, we just make sure we have the option to."
"Oh, okay, then."
5 years later....
"We've come for Billy."
"What do you mean?"
"We have a contract saying you'd give us your firstborn as an apprentice. You signed it."
"But you said you'd never use that clause!"
"New management. I don't know what you're complaining about. You signed it without duress, and initialed the clause indicating you'd read and understood it."
"Mommy?"
"Sorry, honey, you have to go away with the nice Sith Lord. I'll text you every day, I promise."
Let everybody criticize AT&T, and let AT&T cancel all the critic's accounts...AT&T's service sucks, anyway, so they would be doing me a favor by terminating my account.
If you don't intend to act on the terms of a contract, then why are those terms in that contract?
Maybe current AT&T management has no intention of terminating accounts for criticism of the company, but what about the new managers who will be running things tomorrow? Your promises of "we won't do that" have no binding power whatsoever over the other people who will inherit the power of that contract tomorrow. (not to mention that they don't have any legal binding power over you, today).
Sorry, but that just isn't good enough.
We won't hurt you, but all the same please surrender your guns. ... ...
Well, we'll protect you.
What do you mean who will protect you against us,... surrender your guns, now.
Either the moderator didn't read the summary or they failed to get the joke.
I stopped supporting AT&T after the NSA fiasco. I refuse to buy anything of theirs again (sadly, this also means no iPhone, assuming that the hackers can't unlock it with 1.1.1 firmware).
:)
There are alternatives that aren't evil. For instance, for hosting: my service (shameless plug) -- unless it's illegal or interferes with other clients, I won't touch it.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions
Then it won't be a problem removing it, now will it? Especially since existing tort law covers libel?
Any time someone says "oh, we don't intend to use that clause, ignore it", the correct answer is "I don't intend to take a verbal assurance you won't exercise a contractually granted right."
Any time someone insists on guaranteeing something off the record or verbally instead of in the contract you are negotiating there is a reason, especially when their statements contradict terms in the contract.
Please help metamoderate.
..... Because while others have similar policies, AT&T's new spin on this will encourage these companies to get more aggressive about minimizing (if not eliminating) negativity about their product/service. That would really suck if that became true.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Blanket censorship excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?
They claim its so they can stop sites that would be damaging to their name if they were associated with it. An example (while I don't know if they'd use the rule in this scenario) is if they were involved in hosting or providing services to a racial-hate site, they could cancel or suspend that account. However, no matter what way they slice it, its still censorship. Maybe they don't intend to use it to censor badmouthing the company, but its still censorship. If its not illegal, but they don't allow it, its censorship. If this was really their intention, it makes sense for them to leave the clause open like this. HOWEVER, they should add an additional clause that exempts badmouthing the company from that previous clause. They should realize that if it caused such a clamor, they should have dealt with it to assuage people's fears about possibly getting their account canceled if they complain about their service. Instead, they give the equivalent of "we don't want to or intend to do that... but we still can." I can understand keeping the clause open, however, I don't understand at least shutting down that loophole if they really never intend to use it. Its as of everybody said, "well if you don't intend to use it as such, put in a clause saying you never will," and them saying no.
So not only can that clause only be used for censorship (whether or not its about company criticism), but they also won't outright deny that they can use it to shutdown criticism. So, they're hypocritical AND only giving lip service to real fears and questions.
I'm locked-in to a 2-year contract, and my AT&T service (formerly Cingular) quality has decreased since AT&T bought them. This clause gives me a way to get out of my contract. Hopefully this can count as my first official criticism. Oh, and the fact that they keep sending me text messages offering me additional services. Cingular didn't do THAT.
*slithers away*
I detest the transparent prevarications of companies (and governments and ...) that claim a mile, but say "don't worry, we won't use more than an inch." I can understand that given the fuzziness of legal boundaries a prudent corporation might want to give himself a little extra wiggle-room, but my limited experience is that whatever is claimed will, eventually, be used... all of it.
There's a wonderful scene in a novel by John D. MacDonald's book Condominium in which a an agent pushes a legal paper at a condominium buyer saying it is "just a formality." A week later, the buyer is in the office trying to get action on various construction problems and glitches. The air conditioner won't work, for example. The agent says "You can handle that yourself; contact the manufacturer." After several serious complaints have been brushed aside, the buyer starts mumbling about withholding payments and legal action, and the agent tells him that he's basically signed all his rights away.
"But you said that was just a formality," says the buyer.
"That's right," says the agent, "it is a formal, binding, legal agreement."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
So to prevent that they prohibit you from talking bad about the company? Huh?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Something like that was needed
Read radical news here
Everyone's caught up in this clause on the contract but no one even things twice about the binding arbitration clause in almost every contract (including this one).
They usually read something like "you agree never to sue us. Ever. If you're ever unhappy you agree to use binding arbitration (usually with a clause requiring phone, email, or mail settlement and barring in-person) with our chosen arbitration company xyz" ATT actually makes brief mention of small claims court but that's about it.
Now, i know our court systems are horribly abused but it seems that a legitimate use for them "They billed my checking account for 12 months of service when it never worked according to their advertised bla bla bla" can never actually come to fruition.
As for the clause everyone's complaining about: Would you let someone run a website/blog bashing your hosting company ON one of their servers? If you hate ATT enough that you'd publicly bash them, why would you use their servers to do it?
I think this whole topic is a waste of time.
person a "I want to be able to post my website and say whatever i want"
person b "well i know ISP XYZ censors what you post"
person a "Oh, ok. I won't go there then. There's only 14 million other hosting copmanies and plenty of ISP's"
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
By including this clause in their contract, are they not themselves tending to damage the reputation of AT&T? Do they not provide Internet service to themselves? If so, then they should "immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of [their] Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by" themselves.
Wow, that was easy. I'm all set up to follow in Oolon Coluphid's footsteps.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
Thanks - now every Anonymous Coward with an ATT contract is wondering why their phones don't work.
What?
Far as I'm concerned with the feds allowing their latest merger and AT&T's willingness to turn over any data they ask for.. AT&T might as well be the government. Good ol' SovietBell. heh
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
... I would not do business with you either.
Contrary to the popular opinion, discrimination is not illegal, unless it is on the basis of race, religion, health, or age (with some ifs and buts).
Discriminating on the basis of expression of disagreable opinions (other than religious) is perfectly legal. And it better remain so...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
... think of the children?!?!
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
Google "blue room" and "censorship."
Since they reserve the right to censor the customers, how would we know there is an uproar? Look, people have been complaining about the current administration since day one, but you don't see it in the media because they put the protesters in "protest zones" and away from the cameras. Out of site, out of mind. This would do the same thing. The problem would be far worse than reported / indicated. And as a result people will perceive there really isn't a problem.
What, you think I want to go to Comcast?
(Okay, not so true in my area-- I'm on TDS and have options-- but I know of plenty of places, even in the town where I live, where feasible services are offered only by two or three companies.)
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
So that roughly translates to when you criticize AT&T you are exploiting children. One of their employees has 2 kids! And you are affecting their daddy's performance and that indirectly exploits his children. You know AT&T would spin that in some insane direction.
I've read my ISP's (Comcast) TOA, as well as AT&T's and a few others. Yes actually read through them all. Freakin long. But they all say pretty much the same thing. You can't do this, you can't do that. A lot of the terms are unreasonable from a consumer perspective. However, they all have the same thing in common: most ISP's don't strictly enforce their TOA's right off the bat. They only use them as legal leverage to deny or refuse you service when they find you are causing a problem (bandwidth, viruses, etc.) or they don't like you.
Lesson? Don't stand out of the crowd on your neighborhood's internet traffic reports and don't piss your ISP off. At any point in time, they can LEGALLY cut you off.
I'm not saying I agree with it...
the thing is last mile communication service is a natural monopoly, some areas have a duopoloy for historical reasons and some have forced unbundling at various levels. Often there is little if any choice and even where there is choice of some kind you often find that the monopolist has some way to make your life a misery (for example I have a friend here in the UK who has been waiting months for BT to install a phone line, sure once he gets that line he can choose who to buy his calls and internet from but he has to get the thing first).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
.. why give them money? Stupid is as stupid does.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
I don't want to be repetitive here, but I signed up for Cingular cell phone service years ago. I was quite unhappy when AT&T bought them, because I dislike AT&T with a passion. If I do not agree to their new terms of service, is this actually a loophole I can use to get out of my contract without paying an early termination fee, or is it just wishful thinking?
Do or do not. There is no try. --Jedi Master Yoda
AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions and says that the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs. As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."
;-)
;-)
Not to belittle the problems with children being exploited, I feel much better when companies tell me to "think about the children."
Hell, if Comcast only said this is why they are terminating Internet accounts then I would never have started the blog in the first place
On second thought, Yeah, I probably would have anyway
"(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."
A company doesn't put this sort of thing into the TOS / AUP unless they intend to use it. I'm waiting for the first person who is critical of the company and AT&T takes it badly.
I guess AT&T wants their fair share. AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service."
Just make sure there is another service in their area otherwise it's back to dial up you go. Been there, done that. Trust me... it sucks
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
One of my first lessons in capitalism after the change of the political system in Poland was the lesson about contracts:
Want to terminate accounts of paedophiles and abusers? Place the wording about them in contract, but don't fucking pretend that "criticism of the AT&T and its affiliates" doesn't mean what my handicaped knowledge of English says it means.
No really, trust us.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Why the fuck was this posted? They NEED broad language! EVERYONE has broad language in regards to what they can and can't do with email accounts; it's called "CYA", short for "Cover your ass".
This is yet another non issue that KDawson has turned into a rant against THE MAN!!!!1111! Why is he still posting articles?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Don't most large ISPs say something like that in their agreements.
Not saying it is right or anything, but singling out one ISP doesn't seem to really cover the scope of the issue.
Kilroy was here.
Is this something that would change if there was sensible net neutrality policy and laws? This is obviously an infringement of free speech - although while people may have the right to free speech, they may not necessarily be guaranteed a specific platform to do so. In any case it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Slander and libel are one thing, and there's legal recourse for that, but censorship is quite another. IANAL - but it would be worth considering how the rules of the FCC could be interpreted for this to be legal.
No. It isnt a monopoly. I live in a very rural area served by bellsouth and it is most definitely NOT a monopoly. We have no cable or other wireless service aside from cellular - the only "last mile" into my house is a phone line. I have DSL. And that DSL is NOT a monopoly.
There are at least 4 differnt providers in my area offering DSL. I pay my provider a fairly high sixty a month for 3Mbps service. I intentionally avoid the phone company because the phone company sucks. I have no "land line" service - I have DSL on an otherwise "dead" phone line. I don't pay Bellsouth or AT&T for anything; I have no contract with them. Bellsouth was required to unbundle this service as part of its AT&T merger settlement with the FTC. I have no idea if this applies throughout the US, but it most definitely applies to Bellsouth customers.
Because nothing gets a minor to drop his drawers faster than trashing AT&T.(TM)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
... most who object to it do so not out of hatred, but because they've seen the effect it has had on individuals (AIDS, etc..).
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If in/by using the AT&T service you harm the name or reputation of AT&T, you will have your account terminated.
Sounds fair to me!!!
Could the terms be better written . . . you bet. But, the end result is the same. You harm us, we don't have to continue to provide you service.
Apple and AT&T - A Match Made In Heaven!!! Hi all you Steve Jobs syncophants. Mod me down again!!!!
Remember Southwestern Bell (SBC)? I'll trace the history through cell phone service providers because that's the information I have.
When I got my first cell phone in California, it was with PacBell Mobile. Good company, decent customer service. Then SBC bought PacBell out - the cell service provider name changed to PacBell Wireless, then Cingular. Customer service took a dive, service became more spotty and erratic. When the outcry from the customers started getting out of control - hey, presto - now it's called AT&T.
But the company behind the name hasn't changed one little bit. They may say that they wouldn't take action against a subscriber who said something negative about their company - history says otherwise. Consider this: http://pachell.com/
Something you can depend on: they paid a lot to rebrand their company and they'll protect the "integrity" of that brand every way they can. Silencing critics is just plain good business in their world.
"Natural monopoly" refers to a type of industry that is believed to be more efficient when controlled by a single company (which is, of course debatable), not necessarily one that is currently dominated by just one company.
Industries that involve physical infrastructure, like utilities, are commonly cited. You could have two companies each running their own water delivery pipes and their own sewer system through a city, but it would cost the city's population a lot less to pick one and avoid the duplication.
Also worth noting: Third-party DSL generally means that the local phone company allows a DSL provider to hook up their network to the local phone lines. It may be different in your area, but it's possible that your DSL provider contracts with Bellsouth/AT&T for access to that phone line that runs to your house.
The only reason AT&T can even think of trying to squelch "I hate AT&T even though I'm their customer" complaints is because the more reasonable alternative of "I hate AT&T and am now someone else's customer" is often impractical or impossible. And the responsibility for that falls in the lap of government decisions to give AT&T certain rights that are not freely available to would-be competitors.
I don't know about elsewhere, but here (BC, Canada) it's always been the landlord's responsibility to do a move-in and move-out walk-through and note damage, having the tenant sign off on it. Back when I was renting, I had one or two try to pull B.S. on me and I just asked to see the pre-move-in inspection. In one case there was none (I was fine), in another it was lost (I was fine), and in the last they found it and it did note that the damage existed.
Of course, some landlords just try to screw tenants over because they know people won't bother to invest the time/money in fighting it. My favorite was the landlady who gave me a printed contract, and it was on some weirdass paper (or maybe it was the ink) that went 90% blank when I pulled it out several months later. So it's sometimes even a good idea to duplicate your copy of the contract.
Now I own, and I rent to a "roomate" (which saves me from being an official "landlord" and having to deal with giving two months notice to kick out bad renters... like the one girl who came up with "I can't pay next month's rent" two weeks after moving in). I take pictures of the room and sometimes the house beforehand. If you do that, sometimes it's not even a bad idea to print them out (photo printer) on a single sheet and have it signed, or have the photos themselves signed by both parties on the rear and put in a safe place.
Ok I don't know why companies and the government want to censor everyone. Just because we say something you don't like doesn't give you the right to censor us. There is a little thing in the U.S. Constitution that states that we have freedom of speech, press, and religion. Ok so I guess next they are gonna tell us that we all have to follow the same religion. When they started the whole internet thing years ago, i don't think they wanted everything censored. If i want to say something about a company, i have a right to. If they want to cancel a contract because of that then fine. AT&T SUX. That's their rep on the line, not mine. I also don't like the fact that they are covering it up with a BS line about protecting children. Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one, and that is AT&T's excuse for this whole mess. What's next, are they gonna say that they are trying to catch terrorists. All in all don't use a serious issue like child exploitation to cover for your mess that you made. Basically AT&T is gonna lose a lot of customers over this, and all because they don't want people to talk bad about them. Hey AT&T, if you don't want people talking bad about you then improve your signal reception, and customer service because both of them suck. Still feel like canceling my account? I wish you would.
Slashdot censors. Given the community, the whole moderation system serves to censor posts that are politically to the right. Someone can write: "given the evil republican and its bloodthirsty attempts to dominate humanity", and be modded +5 insightful, or, someone can write: "the evil democrat and its bloodthirsty attempts to dominate humanity", and be modded -1 Troll.
In fact, I routinely game the thing, posting left leaning pieces to bring up my karma, and, then, once I get up there, something really far to the right, just to piss everyone off. When my karma gets whacked, I go and post a few things about how we need to love our fellow baby seals until I get that +1 modifier, and, then, its off to the race with how baby seals suck and their heads are perfectly shaped for clubbing. Either that, or I'm just manic depressive.
The point is not to say that slashdot is evil and AT&T are evil. It's really to say that every organization has some right to police itself with its own property. If you don't like the moderation of Slashdot, then don't use it, and if you don't like the censorship of AT&T, then don't use it either.
This is my sig.
"Really, it's OK to give us all this power, we NEED it to protect our/your/their rights. Sure, it COULD be abused, but we would NEVER DO THAT."
Now just how many times have we heard that???
It is never a good idea to make a law broader than is necessary so that you can make sure you have all the criminals covered, at the expense of making even a small minority of the innocent sanctioned. If you can't word the law in such a way as to not incriminate the innocent, it's a bad law. And yes, it really is ok to let 2% of the criminals get away if it means 100% of the innocent remain free.
The same should apply to TOS.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
for god's sake don't be one of their customers if you can avoid it.
IF you can avoid it.
expandfairuse.org
And the secret is out- the new at&t is being run by the Turks!
What if the clause didn't come from higher-ups - but instead of from service personnel??
I had two friends who had worked for a small cheap foreign ISP in service. Since this is service and this is small ISP, they were all-around specialists who had to deal with literally everything, except picking the phone when customers had dialed. They are specialists after all - hot line isn't their job. But rest - is.
So. They were always complaining about customers. No, not every one of them. Not who even call to file a problem/complain. About "whiners" who call and start yelling that "nothing works", "you shitty cheap company", "I wish I buy Internet from better company", "Nothing works" again and so on in the loop. Girls working on hot-lines could do nothing better - since "nothing works" - to hand the call over to specialists who in the end had to deal with the whiners.
There were six(?) such customers. They were complaining all the time: there were no week without them ringing in and start whining. Guess that number of actual connection problem from such calls were pretty damm near zero. If not zero at all.
What I'm trying to get to. Many many peoples working in ISP would be glad to have such clients cut off. And having such clause in contract might be very helpful just for that. ^_^
But something tells me that AT&T clause has a different origins, different purposes...
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
How many times does this thread have to pop up, only to be shot down by the concept that the US Constitution does not protect AT&T customers by granting them freedom of speech?
I hope ATT turns all of you terrorists in. It makes me sick to read..
Wait, i've got a knock on the door
What about this? I'm not an AT&T user, so. . . http://augusthour.com/news/2007/10/04/whatever-you-do-dont-say-att-sucks/