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
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!
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.
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.
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...
I, for one, welcome our Robotic Overlords.
Save the cheerleader, Save the world
I would argue the inverse - that the government is now an arm of the large corporations. They ahve the money and power to influence government for their own desires, and often bigwigs of large corporate enterprises are found in the high ranking slots of government. How free is this free society, really, when the people that are making the decisions at the top level are most concerned with the interests of large corporations that desire above all else a guarantee to the money and subservience of the populace?
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
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
The problem seems to be that despite the best efforts of the founders to limit the power of aristocracy, the power of the dollar is more important than ever in getting elected. Without money, it is nearly impossible to compete in the current election process.
Unfortunately, the only option politicians are pushing (surprise, surprise) is for taxpayers to foot the bill by using taxpayer money to finance campaigns and banning other sources. What we really need to do is limit campaign *spending*. Politicians should be permitted to make public appearances, and appear in televised debates, but they should be prohibited from spending millions on television and newspaper advertising.. perhaps prohibited from running ads at all. It may seem contrary to the notion of free speech to prohibit these things, but I would argue that creating a level playing field (as much as possible) is more important than allowing money to play such a central role in campaigning. Websites, public appearances, and any form of debate, televised or otherwise, should be the limit of campaigns. If you can't do an effective job of expressing your views in those three formats, you just aren't an effective communicator.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What's to stop them from paying shills/astroturfers to upload viral marketing-like stuff to Youtube or to react in forums?
Yeah, you make a good point - controlling the spread of information is just not possible, talk to the RIAA and MPAA about how well they've been able to control the dissemination of media for example. I think we can all agree that the problem is that the dollar trumps the voter. I also think that as long as American citizens that seek wealth do so in the halls of government, they will be fueling the power of the corporate entities that are more than happy to pay their blood money. From this, we can eliminate money from the equation by either removing the human element from government (insane, plus the replacement computer would be built, programmed, and maintained by a human party that can still be corrupted), forbidding government officials from owning assets at any time during or following their term in office (unfeasible), or by jailing government officials and high ranking officers in corporations for soft money or quid pro quo violations found and voiding the actions of such exchanges. Perhaps as an incentive to keep the politicians in line, we add that assets of a corporation and politician found guilty of such actions would be seized by the government and absorbed into the treasury. That might make these jackoffs a little more careful about how they behave, and provide a real incentive for politicians to self-police. The political capital to be gained by blowing the whistle outweighs the rewards and risks of taking a cookie from the jar.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"