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
No, the 'threat' that was 'quite real' was to AT&T's profits. They realized that people would not shut up about this and it would impact their bottom line. They felt the need to put it to rest because it was a non-issue and there was no reason to keep the wording as it was.
All I have to say to that is: Yay internet!
Before the internet, disseminating knowledge about a company's possible practices (as opposed to their real ones) was very tough. Now, in a matter of hours, millions of people can be informed of a looming issue and speak out about it. This sounds like 'down the with corporations!' speech, but it's not. It's good for them as well, as they can now judge their customers attitude in hours as well, instead of implementing a disastrous policy and finding out a year later that it has ruined their business.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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?
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Actually AT&T have the right to conduct business in anyway they see fit and we (as the consumer) have the right to choose any ISP, it's the latter that keeps the former in check.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Actually, their "job" as an ISP is to provide you service. Nothing more, nothing less. Even regarding kiddie porn, as despicable as that is, it is not their job to censor or even monitor that activity.
I know it's a novel concept in our brave new world, but a service provider should just provide service, and leave the monitoring/policing to separate entities whose responsibilities cover those aspects. Otherwise, we all might as well get chipped with GPS locators and audio/video recorders and route everything to your nearest friendly community overlord.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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!
The OP's point is the law is supposed to be enfoced by the courts, not by AT&T.
When a law starts being enforced by private companies, the citizen no longer has any recourse to violate a law that they feel unjust.
The ability to violate unjust laws and get them overruled through jury nullification is one of the cornerstones of the legal system - despite what some judges nowadays instruct their jurys.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
as usual, in a way, Darwin has the correct answer. Evolve or die. Learn to protect yourself or don't. Learn to not leave a system open likely by getting a virus and asking people how to deal with it, or formatting, or etc, or googling the answer, etc. Nobody's born a techie, but some people are too stubborn to evolve/learn. Usually we call them Jehova's Witnesses or bible thumpers.
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"?
So that's the solution? Let most human beings fall victim to the predatory few? What about people who don't have access to technological education? What about people whose only offense was having a credit card?
Furthermore, what about the artists and programmers whose only crime was releasing their work to the public?
Look I don't think corporations should act as police, as the mods and responders seem to think I do, what I am saying is that while we all have benefited from the Internet being a modern day Wild West, we are benefiting off the backs of the rest of humanity.
What if it was the physically strong exploiting the mentally strong, as opposed to the other way around?
_____
Thank you.
Hey morally people don't like lots of things. There are laws to protect in extreme situations but no, people should not be given excessively retarded laws so specific because then it really IS the problem with "protect the children" laws. This is a waste of taxpayer money and politician time.
As a result if such laws if someone is a sexual predator or even accused in error, their life and those of all of their family members is effectively brought to a lower standard of life.
So that's the solution? Let most human beings fall victim to the predatory few? What about people who don't have access to technological education? What about people whose only offense was having a credit card?
Where are you trying to go with this? People without access to technological education often don't have technological access. If people wanted to learn, they'd ask someone who knows. I am not some computer genius but it isn't hard to find someone else who is and ASK them. If you don't want to ask, you don't want to learn. Idealistic morals won't do jack for reality sessions.
Moot point. People already do fall to the predatory few in millions of different fashions. You can try to claim idealistic societies all you want but in every situation "predatory" which can simply mean "superior" situations basically succeed.
The physically strong wouldn't be able to exploit the mentally strong indefinitely, those situations incite rebellion. Look at dictatorships aka tibet or china for examples of that. Tanks may kill people but they don't stop conscious thought.
Can you explain to me how you say we're benefiting off the backs of humanity specific to the internet? I don't really get where you're going with that. either.
It may be the duty of Americans to report unjust activities, but illegal and immoral? Sorry. Legality and morality are the domain of the ruling class - a class that the Americans fought and won a war against. We live in a nation of laws and a nation of religions that tell us the most basic things in life are illegal. The ability to share a work of art with others. The ability to engage in sexual contact before marriage if we choose. In many states and cities, there are even laws against when and where you can cross a street.
Frankly, if Americans minded their own business more, I think America would be a much better place.
Actually AT&T have the right to conduct business in anyway they see fit and we (as the consumer) have the right to choose any ISP, it's the latter that keeps the former in check.
This only works when there is an option. In many places in the US there is only one consumer provider of the internet. At that point, there is no check... It should take all of 30 seconds to find a few thousand examples on google.
You might not be allowed to send bombs by the U.S. Postal Service, but the fact doesn't allow U.S. Postal to go through all your mail and check for bombs. In fact there is a constitutional barrier against exactly that. Why should be Kiddie Porn and Terrorism any different?
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})"