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."

Comments

Ok

[toleraen]

As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much. Fine then: AT&T sucks.

Time to play the waiting game.

Re:Ok

[omeomi]

A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism.

Oh, well okay then, why didn't they say so? Hell, we should give the government the right to censor too, as long as they _say_ they have no intent to do it...I mean, governments and big corporations never lie to the populace, right?

/sarcasm

Re:Ok

[SargentDU]

But you have to be a customer for them to cut you off.

Re:Ok

[Hal_Porter]

My UK ISP Demon has had a clause like this for ages

http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/producthelp/aup/thusaup/
Demon cannot tolerate any behaviour by customers which negatively impacts upon its own equipment or network, or upon the use by other customers of the Internet, or which damages Demon's standing in the wider Internet community.

It's a bit broad, like most consumer contracts - essentially they can stop you being a customer if you piss them off. But as far as I know they use it to get read of spammers, scammers and so on, not to get rid of people who criticize them.

I'm very happy wirh Demon. But I think Laurence Godfrey is a nutter

Re:Ok

[davester666]

a) "clause giving them the right to terminate the account of any AT&T Internet service customer who criticizes the company"
b) "the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs"

Actually, won't (a) actively prevent (b). Statistically, AT&T must employ some people who are child molesters and/or view child pornography. The clause could silence someone who wanted to 'out' one of these employees. Sure it's highly unlikely, but I don't see any other way the two issues are related, as speech related to exploitation of children is generally not merged with speech related to how crappy AT&T is.

Re:Ok

[kimvette]

I am an AT&T (formerly Cingular) customer. I love AT&T. AT&T can do no wrong.

AT&T, thank you for not disconnecting my service upon reading this post.

Re:Ok

[Spacezilla]

I'm very happy with Demon. Yes, I can see why you would say that. :)

Clause not needed

[Kelson]

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)?

Re:Clause not needed

[enrevanche]

clause C (make AT&T look bad)

should actually be stated

clause C (make AT&T look worse)

which is actually not really feasible, so it should be impossible for them to shut you off

open container law

[Gothmolly]

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.

Re:open container law

[pilgrim23]

run a line thru 90% of the contract. inital the line. then sign. And remember: SMILE!

Le Sigh

[TubeSteak]

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. Then put that specific language into the contract.
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.

AT&T sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Conversely...

[Tackhead]

> As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."

...but as the contract notes, accusing AT&T of being run by bunch of wannabe censors, spies, and just plain all-round fucknozzled douchebags, is saying maybe a little too muc-
NO CARRIER

Re:Conversely...

[Vendetta]

That was nice of AT&T to click submit for you.

Online Bill of rights?

[porkrind]

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

Re:Online Bill of rights?

[gillbates]

with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply

Problem is, one man's freedom of speech is another man's hate speech.

• If I feel oppressed or offended by you pointing out the flaws in my religion, then I have grounds to have your account terminated under hate speech laws.
• If your religion condemns my sexual choices, then I can have your speech banned under most hate speech laws.
• If you question the holocaust, or are even unsure of the numbers killed (was it four million? or six?), then your speech can be banned under hate speech laws.

Hate speech laws are just that - they hate your freedom of speech. There are already laws on the books which prevent threatening and defamatory speech; the reason for hate speech laws is to prevent discussion on a particular topic, instead making it illegal to publicly espouse a position contrary to the politically correct one enshrined in law. The goal is to silence dissent and prevent critical thought on the issues of the day. The end result is that a small minority of politically connected people are able to force their particular vision of morality on the rest of the public.

Sure, you might think that someone who doesn't like homosexuality is a bigot; as long as hate speech laws exist, you'll never discover that there are some very good arguments against homosexuality, and that most who object to it do so not out of hatred, but because they've seen the effect it has had on

Don't worry, we'll never use that option!

[Kelson]

"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."

Re:Don't worry, we'll never use that option!

[pokerdad]

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.

Sounds like several rental agreements I've had over the years. When moving in I ask the landlord to make note of a dozen or more minor flaws with the apartment. The landlord either outright refuses (saying, we would never ding you for something that small), or says they'll do it but doesn't, then when I am trying to get my damage deposit back years later and am now dealing with a different person I lose most or all of the deposit because there is no documentation that says these little problems pre-date me.

Re:Don't worry, we'll never use that option!

[Known Nutter]

But, but... they did it on Law & Order!

Today then tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There are alternatives!

[mind21_98]

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. :)

then nixxing it won't be a problem

[SuperBanana]

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.

And AT&T calls checkmate

[QCompson]

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?

Re:And AT&T calls checkmate

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Sounds like you have something to hide, or else you wouldn't be complaining.

Re:And AT&T calls checkmate

[ShaunC]

When will the madness end?

When everyone quits having children. I'm doing my part!

Re:And AT&T calls checkmate

[Nimey]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071001.jpg

We claim a mile, but we'll only use an inch...

[dpbsmith]

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."

What about Binding Arbitration

[torkus]

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"

Re:What about Binding Arbitration

[Qzukk]

person a "Oh, ok. I won't go there then. There's only 14 million other hosting copmanies and plenty of ISP's"

Yeah, I was thinking of switching back to dialup too. There just isn't that much need for me to have websites display in less than a couple of minutes, and online gaming was kind of overrated.

Of course, my dialup would be going over AT&T's phonelines, so I suppose they could send some guy out with the wirecutters if they don't like what I have to say.

Re:What about Binding Arbitration

[jdjbuffalo]

Basically what Qzukk said above me.

You have to realize that in a truly capitalist environment you could get away with this because someone could go to a different ISP. But in many areas you have a choice between 1-2 ISPs (not counting dial-up). You have the cable company and the phone company (and the various 3rd party resellers of the phone companies lines).

Whereas in a capitalist utopia you would have probably 10 different ISPs and all would have different terms and you could easily choose to switch between them without having to worry about a big behemoth cutting you off the internet access (corporate censorship).

AT&T *IS* the Goverment.

[k1e0x]

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