Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Facing Lawsuit Over Text Message Censorship
Tootech writes with this quote from Wired:
"A mobile-marketing company claimed Friday it would go out of business unless a federal judge orders T-Mobile to stop blocking its text-messaging service, the first case testing whether wireless providers can block text messages they don't like. EZ Texting claims T-Mobile blocked the company from sending text messages for all of its clients after learning that legalmarijuanadispensary.com, an EZ Texting client, was using its service to send texts about legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California. 'T-Mobile subjectively did not approve of one of the thousands of lawful businesses and non-profits served by EZ Texting,' according to New York federal lawsuit."
It's not really censorship. Besides, I never say anything that needs to be censored.
ISPs have an established precedent for blocking spam. Same concept, different medium.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Cell companies can block whatever they want. (Unless the law has recently changed and I didn't know about it.)
.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
How is it legal for a carrier to block messages from a legitimate customer unless the messages were spam? If they are offensive or illegal then its up to the police, yes? Isn't there regulations to stop carriers from either spying on or interfering with communications?
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Unless T-Mobile is now run by the government, blocking text messages isn't censorship. The messages run over their private networks, so they are free to pass or block them.
Explain to me why you file this lawsuit in a federal court in New York and not a state court in California - where a judge just might be a little less hostile to the trade in "medical" marijuana.
They are using a limited US resource, in this case the radio spectrum. That might make things a little more complex.
I'm all for shutting down marketing firms that depend solely on text messages. In the US, we pay for each text message that we receive (or it counts towards a monthly allotment). Imagine if your ISP allowed only 100 emails per month, unsolicited email would not be tolerated.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Surely this action would remove their common carrier status? Now that they have demonstrated they have the capability to censor content, they can assume responsibility for other content that they allow through?
Also, for those saying it is not censorship because it is not the government....no. Just no.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
T-Mobile will tell you they're a COMMON CARRIER. That means they don't get to pick and choose who uses their service. By your reasoning (they can do anything they please on a private network) they could decide to drop all calls from Blacks, or women, or Republicans. How long would that be tolerated?
Try to get removed, and they don't.
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
Now if they had to pay every recipient - even a penny - spam would almost disappear. So don't tax email or spam - just make it a micro-transaction from one party to the other, and allow for me to white-list people who can send me stuff for free, and blacklist others who will have to pay a buck.
"Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting’s customers upon request."
You text a request and it sends you a response, that's how EZ Text works. But don't read the article or anything.
Are you trying to signal that you've bombed a dam?
Get him! He's a terrorist!
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise#Organisation
It wouldn't be censorship. That was my only point. I didn't say anything about it being a problem. There are plenty of problematic things that don't fall under the label of censorship.
Also, there is no requirement that TMobile actually deliver *any* sms message - read your contract. the big print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Marijuana may be "legal" in California and here in Massachusetts, as far as the state and commonwealth are concerned, but try dealing near a DEA agent even in those states.
It's against Federal law, and as soon as any of those text messages cross state lines, and T-Mobile is aware of it, they can get screwed for it. I don't think it's a matter of the provider seeking them out, but probablu in response to reports and dealing with the matter after being made aware of the issue so they are not accessories to a felony. Good for T-Mobile. :)
Now, whether or not Marijuana should be illegal is a different story. I am of the opinion that if someone wants to fry their brain on drugs (be it pot or crack or LSD or meth) let them - just have VERY harsh sentences for DUI (right now the laws are far too soft), and don't give financial assistance or "free"[sic] health care after they've lost everything including their sanity and physical health.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
No it doesn't. The FCC is a federal agency and the marketer is wanting to market materials which violate federal law. For better or for worse those dispensaries are not legal and as such T-mobile has the right to block them.
The definition of the word "censorship" says nothing about the Government. Just because those text messages don't get first amendment protection here doesn't mean they're not being censored.
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Censorship is a free for all game, anyone can join in.
Or can you point me to some definition of censorship that required a government to do the actual censoring?
Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
Run by Shane Neman, who also runs "Club Texting," both companies are known for sending out unsolicited text spam, which is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (because the recipient has to pay to receive the message). When not avoiding disclosure of legal liabilities to their customers, they're quietly lobbying the FCC to get the same odious protections Congress gave junk faxers.
http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/club-texting/
EZ Texting makes sure to send their messages from obfuscated domains with "private" registration information (spammers apparently don't like being spammed, or being served lawsuits).
I doubt this is less about the content of the advertising and more about T-Mobile responding to customer complaints and attempting to cut off an unlawful advertiser who's trespassing on their networks. A spammer is a spammer is a spammer.
why can't there be free incoming and 1-800 like numbers that are free to to text (they pay the costs) and 1-900 like ones where you don't pay the base rate + there own rate (you just pay there rate)
Do you consider all spam filtering companies as censoring companies? Do you consider anti virus software as censorship software?
All of the examples I have given will restrict what you see. By your definition, that is censorship. Correct or no?
If you answer yes to all of these being censorship. Are you stating they should be illegal?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
yea sure i believe that.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Dont we already have telephone neutrality?
Censorship is censorship, no matter whether the government is doing the censoring, or a private company, or a private individual. It's still censorship. The government has different restrictions and obligations regarding censorship than private companies or individuals. You cannot claim "government censorship" in the case of Tmobile, but it still remains censorship.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I recall another SMS gateway (again, used by many, many companies to send text messages) had one of its main shortcodes shut down by whatever group regulates SMS because one of its clients was abusing the service. That meant that all the other legitimate clients sharing that shortcode were also shut down.
They all claim that. It's a lie.
Sucker texts BUZZ420, gets the "Sorry you didn't win, btw did you know that yadda yadda yadda."
He gets the spam after sending the short code. They will claim a pre-existing relationship from some email he may or may not have clicked on 5 years ago from some other place that included crap about sending offers from their "partners".
No, we broke it apart in the 70s because it was too socialist, and now the Bells come back home to roost as an unregulated monopoly.
Let customers opt in/out of spam text blocking.
That is incorrect. It is the fed's prohibition laws which are actually illegal. The U.S. Constitution has no provision for banning "drugs", and certainly banning plants is just idiotic. The dispensaries are legal in the jurisdictions in which they operate. The federal government, OTOH, has been in operating in violation of its own charter documents for generations and is therefore illegal. While obviously this won't help you in court, it does kind of put your claim of a particular plant being "illegal" in perspective.
Caveat Utilitor
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
ConsumerAffairs article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/verizon_abortion.html
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Really, I suspect this is far more simple than that. Medical Marijuana is illegal. In EVERY state. Period. We all already know that Interstate Commerce laws trump any state law. Do we have to agree with that? No. Can the states decide to continue to ignore that fact? Sure. But the fact is, in Federal Court, such things dont matter. It is still illegal at the federal level.
As a company, T-Mobile cannot allow the use of their services to knowingly allow such drug transactions or discussions related to such transactions. In addition, them blocking a company that's violating such Interstate Commerce Laws is also a wise thing (in legal terms). Kinda like if you have a friend who wants to keep borrowing your car to go buy drugs. You stop letting your friend borrow your car at all - even though much of the time it might not to buy drugs, that way ensuring you distance yourself from his activities so no one can make claims that you're knowingly a part of it. This is a LOT different than Joe texting Jim for a dime bag.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, and though IANAL, I think it makes sense.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Really? That's why it was broken up? It was too socialist? Wow. Thanks for that informative info Mr. AC. And here I was thinking because they were horribly abusing their monopoly power. Why, I guess I didn't realize that and I really should have loved having to pay rent on every phone in my house because you weren't allowed to own your own phone. You had to rent ALL your equipment from them.
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
isn't that the question? why a judge is getting involved?
to decide if they are obeying the law or not?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Well, back when I had AT&T (way back) it was free to receive texts, and something like 10 cents to send. There weren't any Texting plans at the time. Sprint also use to (I think they brought it back recently) have a free incoming call plan as well
So glad we got rid of that practice instead of letting it spread to other services, like TV.
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
Yes, and more to the point, the Constitution is really only concerned about government muzzling its citizens. If the citizens want to muzzle each other, that's a different matter entirely. This is one private corporation having a pissing match with another private corporation, no more and no less.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
or discussions related to such transactions.
Please move to a different country or learn the Constitution.
or discussions related to such transactions.
Please move to a different country or learn the Constitution.
Please move back to reality. In cases related to drug offenses, there are various statutes (per jurisdiction, or even federal) that allow the seizure or forfeiture of property used in the commission of such a crime. They've been applied very broadly in some cases.
In this case, T-Mobile would be knowingly facilitating the illegal sales of drugs (ie: "discussions relating to such transactions"). Facilitation is a crime.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Medical Marijuana is illegal. In EVERY state. Period. ... Interstate Commerce laws trump any state law.
Back to reality. Medical marijuana is legal in Michigan law. So far, the federal government hasn't prosecuted. For all intents, you're not going to jail.
And I love how my original post was marked troll. If the downmodders had their way, the word "censorship" would mean anyone who didn't propagate their messages wherever they wanted. What word would we then use for the much more serious case of the government using force to prevent its citizens from expressing themsleves using their own property?
So it's censorship if the owner of private property exerts control over what information flows through his property, either electronic or physical? I just fail to see how that's a useful definition, because every property owner does this in one way or another. Anyway, if we adopt that definition, what do we use to refer to someone suppressing information that's being published/communicated using someone else's private property? For example, Tom going over to Bob's house and destroying all his books about atheism, or the government doing likewise.
Tom would be guilty of censorship, but he would probably never be charged with it. As a private citizen, the offense of censoring someone is a relatively petty crime. He would likely be charged with one version or another of vandalism, trespass, violating someone's civil rights, theft, breaking and entering, and a variety of other charges that the local constabulary might dream up. Did he burn those books? Arson can go right on in there. Are there children living in the house? Add child endangerment. The government, on the other hand, isn't likely to be charged with anything at all. Remember - they have all the lawyers, all the guns, and all the money. The victim will have to resort to subversive tactics to keep his reading material, or plot a revolution, or leave the country, or call in the equivalent of the ACLU. If, of course, the ACLU hasn't all been executed! (Hey, that sounds like a catchy little tune - "Send lawyers, guns and money, 'cause the shit has hit the fan!" Oh, crap, Warren Zevon already did that one!)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Why bother? Slashdot is so informative and unbiased. There's no need to go beyond this comments page ever.
effing lawyers will always confuse and make money off things that should be obvious to a reasonable person or a company that wishes to have the good will of the customers it serves,The operative word here is GREED, mostly on the part of the legal sections of the companies involved. These corporate lawyers are just trying to lock in their jobs by litigation at the drop-of-a-hat. Richard Cranium et al .
Medical Marijuana is illegal. In EVERY state. Period. ... Interstate Commerce laws trump any state law.
Back to reality. Medical marijuana is legal in Michigan law. So far, the federal government hasn't prosecuted. For all intents, you're not going to jail.
Back to reality... "so far..." means nothing, especially considering it's not true (nationally). The feds have indeed prosecuted such cases (though perhaps not in Michigan yet), and won, claiming jurisdiction via the Interstate Commerce Clause. The ruling was also upheld on appeal. As a matter of fact, just a few days ago, the feds seized a bunch of medical marijuana from "legal" dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, and reportedly seized patient and financial records. You may also want to read up on Raich v. Ashcroft to see where the precedent was set. There are other similar actions going on (or recently happened) as well.
Which brings us back to, (1) marijuana (medical or otherwise) is illegal in every state, because, as noted in the Constitution, state laws do not trump federal laws (and as long as they can stretch the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant them such powers, this will remain the case), and (2) the Feds are already making examples of both individuals and dispensaries. Dontcha think that T-Mobile would make a great target for the Feds to make an example of in an effort to make other companies and individuals think twice about doing what the Feds say is illegal? As for me, I think it's possible. Likely? Dunno. BUT, if I were T-Mo, I wouldnt take the chance, especially when forfeiture (of equipment or worse) is a possible end result of any such charges leveled against them. And at the very least, they may have entire servers taken as "evidence" in any proceedings that happen.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
maybe they weren't offended by the content, as the story's author suggests, but merely covering their legal assets from being involved in the crime of people selling and smoking marijuana?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
So do we use the same term for Bob deciding not to have any Christian books in his own home as we use for Tom removing Bob's atheism books without permission? I had always thought that censorship referred only to the the serious latter situation, but people here say it applies as well to Bob deciding what books to have in his house. That waters the term down so much that it's hardly even notable that someone is practicing censorship. Most topics on Wikipedia's censorship page cover the serious cases, so the contributors there seem to agree with me, not that they are necessarily right either.
I think that Bob removing books from his own house that he doesn't want in his house MIGHT qualify as "self censorship" - but I wouldn't go that far. If Bob doesn't want a copy of Mein Kampf, or Catcher in the Rye, or a Bible, or a copy of the US Constitution, well, that's just preference. Or, maybe Bob is a packrat, and he has no room left in his home to store the newest Harry Potter books - so SOMETHING has to go! He would probably rather throw the wife out, but she's to big to move, LOL
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This is what T-Mobile is doing, as I understand it. They're removing particular data from their private network, rather than going on to someone else's and removing it without permission. They aren't trying to stop people from passing these particular messages between each other, merely refusing to carry such messages on their own network.
Whoops - you've lost me there. T-mobile isn't exactly a "private" anything. They are publicly traded, they get government subsidies, they have a near monopoly in some areas - in no way do they qualify as "private". They don't get to decide for themselves what traffic goes over their network, any more than the owners of a turnpike can decide who can drive down their toll roads. If the customer has green, he gets to go, simple as that. When someone decides to do some "self censoring" he can't also decide that other people must live by his own self imposed standards. Especially not when you are running a government regulated business, or a "commodity" vending business.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Well, Obama did say they wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana that was legal under a particular state's laws.
Michigan did have a big bust recently of a medical marijuana place that was heavily involved (or so it was claimed) in illegal marijuana dispensation. They were growing way, way too much and stuck out like a sore thumb.
It's astounding how these things can confuse people. If it's illegal under your state's laws, the feds may indeed go after you. And "medical marijuana" isn't a catch-all for all marijuana.
Far more interesting will be November if California approves it in general.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
that's like when you can't get somebody on the actual crime, you can still put them in jail on "conspiracy" for discussing it.