Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Issues Formal 'Censorship' Apology
netbuzz writes "AT&T this evening has issued new terms of use language that it hopes will cap a firestorm of protest over the original version that appeared to give the company freedom to pull the plug on anyone who had the temerity to criticize AT&T or its affiliates. Whether you believed that threat to be real or overblown, the new language would seem to put the issue to rest."
FYI...
http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195
However, they still reserve the right to terminate your service if you break a law or violate their TOS.
Seems to me like they don't respect your right to free speech at all. If they can shut you down for any violation of law (perhaps something as innocuous as downloading images that violate your community's standards or post intent to do harm to the President in an online forum), then they respect the law, not your rights.
Whether you believed that threat to be real or overblown, the new language would seem to put the issue to rest."
Given the fact that AT&T seemed to think it necessary to "put the issue to rest", I'd say the threat was quite real.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I mean, AT&T sucks but *#@#@*(#*(@ [carrier lost]
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
AT&T this evening has issued new terms of use language that it hopes will cap a firestorm of protest over the original version that appeared to give the company freedom to pull the plug on anyone who had the temerity to criticize AT&T or its affiliates.
This is a clever marketing ploy, but honestly, they don't care. They don't have to. They're the phone company.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Hmf. I thought they put that language in their Terms of Service so they could do their part to stop the exploitation of children?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1728217
Now the only reasonable question is: does AT&T support child exploitation?
This is a very Good Thing. I actually believe AT&T when they say "We feel that the clarifying language better reflects our actual long-held policy." There's a very poisonous process that occurs when unwritten de facto policies are formalized. Very often, the de facto policies are fairly reasonable.
When the policy is written down and the lawyers get involved, they fence in a square mile in order to protect an acre. This is done because they don't think anyone will notice and there doesn't seem to be any real cost involved, so it's just prudent to include a fat safety margin around the "real" policy. As long as the same personnel continue to administer the real policy there's no big problem. The damage comes a few years later when new people come in and see no reason not to use the whole square mile.
Consumer pushback makes it clear that there is a cost involved in being overprotective, and that there is a benefit involved in having a written policy that simply spells out, rather than overextends, the real policy intention.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
and now for the president... if we can get the Current administration to do the same...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
They can still terminate you for bashing AT&T:
"AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns."
If you wanted to interpret that language in the strictest sense, they've reserved the right to terminate you for expressing any views that *don't* concern public policy or politics.
Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but why be so specific about what they *won't* terminate you for talking about? Why not say something like "We'll terminate you if you slander or libel someone, but just expressing an opinion is fair game"?
... the new language would seem to put the issue to rest.
Until next week, that is, when they silently change the TOS again.
Actually, it won't be censorship. It'll just be inexplicable packet loss. They'll be working on finding the source of the problem.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Now, now. That's hardly surprising, is it ? I mean, given the steady leftist trend in US society since the 1980's, and Reagan.
No powerful entity in their right egregora would so much as dream that any encroachment on any form or expression of civil rights, or the Magna Carta, could be tolerated, let alone condoned by society. Not to mention its legitimately elected representatives and minuciously supervised institutions.
After all, in the living, thriving, grass-roots democracy that the US ever increasingly is, popular conscience and activism would never allow it to ever really happen.
(Yes, thank you, Dr. Delgado, I *do* want to push that lever again.)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The hypothetical threat of AT&T censoring someone for criticizing them, or the tangible threat to consumer rights from companies routinely putting in offensive to unconscionable language into boilerplate EULA/TOS contracts? Perhaps some citizen-friendly congresscritter might introduce legislation giving customers standing to sue over such offensive boilerplate, and collect damages if any term is shown in court to be unconscionable. That would compel companies to make such take-it-or-leave-it "agreements" a bit more balanced. Naahhh....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
When a company gets big enough, it is a de facto government department. Telecoms, water companies, autombile manufacturers, etc, etc, etc. As time goes by, these companies get so big that the government takes notice. Pork and subsidies of all kinds are offered and accepted. Bribes and Lobbyists are put in place to keep the government sweet. Anyone who thinks that "free enterprise" and "free markets" mean freedom from governments is living in a dogmatic fantasy land.
Big Corporations are as much a part of our governments as our education departments, tax offices and police forces. The only real differences is that they are officially "off the books" independent entities that can do just about whatever they please. In practice, this means that the government can engage in domestic espionage, blacklisting, censorship, propaganda, religious indoctrination, or just about anything else it's officially prohibited from doing by outsourcing the operations to its far flung, but still intimate branches.
AT&T is probably the worlds best example of an off the books government department. Both in terms of the operations they conduct, and also how well everyone has managed to swallow their whole "private industry" cover story.
May the Maths Be with you!
From your quote:
"(b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines"
It would be simple for them to adopt a guideline of "not defaming any organizatin with out massive proof or criminal conviction". Then, they can still shut down anyone who criticize at&t actions as defamation. The only check is public outcry such as these.
Now if only they'd apologize for being the FBI/NSA's lap dog...
"Please forgive us for the censorship and stuff. Our bad, really. Oh... by the way, since we are such great buddies now, can you please write your congressman and have them give us that immunity for participating in that illegal domestic spying program? That would be great! Thanks a bunch, really.
Oh, by the way, there will be a slight increase in your monthly payment: we need it to finance the removal of a few more competitors. Take care!"
It bugs me when people include unavailable documents by reference. Is there a non-evil reason to scatter the terms of the contract among several documents?
I thought their new ToS was pretty crappy, so I'm glad to see they've amended it - better still that they've actually apologized.
Now how about an apology for illegally spying on U.S. citizens?
Also, I'm assuming you meant a square-shaped acre not a square acre, as a square acre would be a 4 dimentional space, and though lawyers might try, I don't think they would succeed.
tjjfv
http://tjjfv.com