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."
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
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.
In fact, if you read your contract, they have no obligation to deliver ANY text message. They may attempt to. That's it. "We attempted to, It didn't pass through the spam filters. Sux 2 B U"
besides, they were using the TMobile computer-to-sms gateway - they have no contractual arrangement with TMobile, so it's not even like Joe Blow Customer who can complain if his messages are getting censored.
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?
>they should be fined so heavily as to send a clear message about 'selective filtering' due to political or religious (lets be honest, here) reasons.
Not sure I agree with you. Reading between the lines I get "Marketing firm lays the censorship card when falling foul of spam filter".
I hope they get laughed out of court, if spam filters become suable as illegal censorship we may be back on the road to endlessly reading about penis enlargement and 28 million unclaimed tax free dollars from a deposed Nigerian dictator or how we can even loose 50 pounds of fat an hour using this weird old tip (I'm guessing sharp scissors and a hoover).
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.
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.
as soon as any of those text messages cross state lines, and T-Mobile is aware of it, they can get screwed for it.
They can now. They couldn't before, as they were just a carrier.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You do realize that these are just messages about legally available marijuna, not the actual substance itself, traveling through their switches and communications gear don't you?
Should common carriers be allowed to examine your text messages and decide what to block? Your email? Your voice communications?
Should we all be prohibited from talking or texting about things or activities which are illegal in some places but not necessarily where we live?
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
In that case, T-Mobile should have notified EZ Texting that the shutdown was because of complaints about unsolicited texts, which are a violation of their terms of service and of Federal law. I'm sure there have been complaints about EZ Texting - I'm a T-Mobile customer and have called them to complain about unsolicited texts. I've also filed 1088's with the FCC.
Blocking a spammer wouldn't create this lawsuit or publicity.
This is bullshit. "Attempt to" means a best effort or at the very least a reasonable effort attempt. If you didn't deliver the message because your spam filter stopped it, you didn't attempt to deliver it, for any reasonable definition of "attempt".
Of course the court might still agree with you, being run by lawyers rather than reasonable people, but still...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No, because I either have access to the "spam folder" where the messages tagged as spam go, or the filter is under my own control.
No, because an anti-virus program is installed by me, and when it finds a virus it tells me what was blocked, why, and how to access the blocked content if I want to.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Let customers opt in/out of spam text blocking.
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!