Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Gets Patent To Monitor and Track File-Sharing Traffic

Posted by timothy on from the phone-company-is-the-isp-and-vice-versa dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Internet provider AT&T has patented a new technology that allows the company to accurately track content being shared via BitTorrent and other P2P networks. The company explains that the technology can be utilized to detect pirated downloads and combat congestion on its network. Whether the company is already using the system to track infringing content, or has plans to do so, is unknown."

75 comments

  1. Wishful thinking... by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Your users are infringing our copyrights!"

    "You just infringed our Patent."

    1. Re:Wishful thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You all infringed our basic human rights"

    2. Re:Wishful thinking... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      This patent doesn't look like it amounts to much.

      Their "content analysis module" must, according to their diagram, access "illegal" content to analyze it before they can track it.

      Which means: if they use it, they are JUST AS GUILTY of "downloading" as whoever they're tracking. This is the very same problem that has stopped all the other tracking systems in their tracks, as it were.

      The law DOES NOT exempt corporations.

  2. Encypted VPNs FTW by maliqua · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So i guess one should just factor the cost of VPN service into there comparison when deciding which ISP to chose

    1. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. You should factor in the cost of providing unused bandwidth to the anonymous network of your choice via running your own node from home, datacenter, etc.
      Because VPN's do NOTHING to protect you in the real world. One valid subpoena or complaint with a VPN and you and your little filesharing dreams via VPN are through.
      Have no fear with anonymous networks...

    2. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by fredprado · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry my friend, but most of the VPN services used for this end do not keep records and are in places where they are not required to. Who the hell would use a VPN in US, land of the corporations?

    3. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by Seumas · · Score: 2

      That isn't always the case. You need to inquire as to the policy of your VPN service. For example, ProXPN (a service I've been looking into) makes the following statements about their policy:

      "proXPN, B.V. will only use personally identifiable information collected through our web site to contact users regarding only products and services offered by proXPN, B.V. We will NOT share this information with anyone. Period."

      Our system only monitors a connection if a user is having connection issues so that we can improve our services to you.

      Information about users that is maintained on our systems is protected using industry standard security measures.

      We do not monitor or record activity on our network (not that we even could, as the connection is encrypted).

      We log which proXPN IP is assigned when a user connects. These logs are kept for 2 weeks and then deleted. We use these logs for internal server administration and IP provisioning.

      Of course, I'm sure that if the government knew you were using a particular VPN service (easily identified by your billing records), they could just contact the company and say "from today on, you must monitor and retain all records for this user" and they would.

    4. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

      We log which proXPN IP is assigned when a user connects. These logs are kept for 2 weeks and then deleted. We use these logs for internal server administration and IP provisioning.

      Isn't the entire point that the VPN IP you are using CANNOT be traced back to you? Why is this logged? I don't mind logging THAT you are using the service and other billing-related data points, but why the exact IP (instead of e.g. out of which pool)? And why keep these logs for a full 14 days instead of the duration of the connection and in volatile memory to boot? 14 days is long enough to obtain subpoenas, evidence preservation orders, etc.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    5. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still don't get it do you? This isn't some 'FTW' chan game.
      The court/law in the country of the VPN can order/coerce the VPN into logging everything you do via their service.
      They may not listen to your countries wishes, but they will follow theirs.
      And unless you have bought an unlimited transfer/bandwidth account level, they can, will, and must
      log your IP, account name, and at minimum the amounts transferred in order to bill you. And they're
      going to keep that data for at least the minimum period of time required by the credit card companies,
      and themselves, in case of a bill dispute. And for their own network provisioning.
      The only way to ensure you have no worries is to use anonymous networks.
      Quit using 'FTW', you lose all credibility the minute you use it.

    6. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone pay a company for a vpn when they could just pay for their own high speed internet and run an anonymous network over it. There's no need to give profit to the vpn company. Become your own vpn company.

    7. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by westlake · · Score: 1

      Sorry my friend, but most of the VPN services used for this end do not keep records and are in places where they are not required to. Who the hell would use a VPN in US, land of the corporations?

      I admire the geek's willingness to trust services based five to ten thousand miles distant whose true allegiances cannot be known.

      If they sell you out you have no recourse.

    8. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe because the said person would want to access stuff outside his own anonymous network...

    9. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Well, in the end you have to trust in something. Personally I feel much more comfortable trusting people like the piratebay guys and associates than I feel about trusting Google and MS, especially after the last NSA shenanigans of late.

    10. Re:Encypted VPNs FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a 100% (real!) unlimited bandwidth VPN... Not expensive at all.. About $7 per month...

      On top of this i have the possibility to buy a fixed IP and other such things... Perfect when you want to run a server at home but the ISP is blocking incoming ports etc.

      This VPN service also guarantees anonymity, in their privacy-statement at least. No logs are kept of what IP connected to the VPN service and no logs are kept what public IP a user had, except when having a static IP ofcourse. Also they do not keep any personal information on you except for a mail-address and payment of the service can be made in anonymous ways like prepaid credit-cards (completely non-identifiable.). As soon as the payment has been done the account is just set to "paid" so sure, there is a limited amount of time they could gather identifiable payment-records..

      But sure.. If they got ordered to start tracking a user that was involved in a crime they would... The benefit is still there... no automatic global monitoring can be done, and at least some effort is needed from their side.. Just having them request a warrant to tap into the communication is a big blocker for them...

  3. So they patented... by Molochi · · Score: 2

    So they patented tracking an easily traceable file transfer protocol. One that everyone knows leaves them open to easily provable lawsuits if they use it to pirate stuff.

    So are they going to sue Comcast over this? Or does Comcast have prior art?

    --
    "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  4. don't sell it if you can't provide it. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "combat congestion on its network" ...which is more cost-effective than... you know... actually paying for the infrastructure to handle the utilization levels you are selling to customers.

    --
    THL phish sticks
    1. Re:don't sell it if you can't provide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I try to make sure that all my computers are constantly streaming legal HD Video, just so I know I'm not being ripped off.

      Of course, Comcast can't seem to manage a watchable 480 stream out of their own site half of the time. But since they're always advertising about 20x the bandwidth they actually provide... I think of it as lifting. Eventually they'll catch up.

    2. Re:don't sell it if you can't provide it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      byte swaps, kiloquads.

      nothing changes at at&t

  5. Obvious by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The method is simple: Find a link to torrent, check it for copyright violation and try to download registering IPs of peers in process.

    The technological countermethod is simple too: I2P or VPN. I2P is a CLOSED network, and it means that you cannot download anything from ordinary Internet but VPN can be used traditionally. There are lots of other P2P networks but I just have no info about them.

    The legal countermethod is simple too: Attempt of investigators to download a counterfeit file is a provocation of crime that should not happen without it. And there is no method to ensure that the peer really contains a file except this provocation.

    1. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have rightly said, VPN's do almost nothing to protects you when up against solid adversaries. Only anonymous networks can truly withstand all manner of routine investigation. They might not be able to withstand the spooks of international agencies, but they're not interested in what porn you're sharing. VPN's can't withstand even the casual formletter from the RIAA.

    2. Re:Obvious by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Informative

      The method is simple: Find a link to torrent, check it for copyright violation and try to download registering IPs of peers in process.

      Alas, not everyone is necessarily sharing, and in many countries just the act of downloading copyrighted material without sharing it is not illegal or constitutes a copyright violation. It is, for example, possible to download from BitTorrent like this, though not many people seem to know how.

    3. Re:Obvious by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not good enough.

      Confirmed torrent. Confirmed IP's. Did not confirm machine with content. Did not confirm owner of machine.
      Encryption is enabled. Unable to confirm actual data is being transmitted to IP address, unable to determine actual data is be transmitted from the IP address.
      Only method to confirm - Receive and or send copyrighted data to IP to confirm it has or is receiving copyrighted data.

      Crap, provided copyrighted files to people.
      Arrest self.

      There's laws that prevent entrapment etc. Special cases can get special warrents but generally.

    4. Re:Obvious by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Except no actual data transfer needs to take place; the basis is 'Making Available'; just like it's illegal to sell oregano while claiming it's marijuana.

      "But I wasn't actually going to do it!" is not sufficent defense, otherwise noone would be in prison for 'conspirancy to commit...'

    5. Re:Obvious by johanw · · Score: 1

      That depends on the local laws. I remember here someone who thought he bought marihuana in The Netherlands was arrested for it when he crossed the Belgian border, but they had to drop the charges when it turned out he was cheated on and had actually bought legal dried vegetables.

    6. Re:Obvious by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You don't need to keep the NSA from tracking you. You need to keep back hired investigators doing bulk-trawling or ISPs using packet inspection en mass. Not so sophisticated, or so focused: If they can't identify you with a purely automatic script, then you're not worth their effort.

    7. Re:Obvious by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Entrapment doesn't come into this, because there is no need to take the issue to court either civil or criminal. The main interest from ISPs like AT&T is going to be in bandwidth conservation - all they need to do is find the torrent users, apply a quick whitelist for the 'big legitimate' class like WoW updaters, and throttle the rest to dialup level. It does mean a few false alarms as people downloading the more obscure linux distros and independent films are misclassified as pirates, but the loss of a small fraction of customers* could be far outweighed by the savings made in peering costs and deferred network upgrades.

      *Assuming they actually have an alternative provider to go to - many areas have a regional monopoly ISP.

    8. Re:Obvious by Artagel · · Score: 1

      Let's keep a few things straight here...

      (1) Civil and criminal copyright infringement are two different things.
      (2) To be liable for civil infringement, the copyright owner has to enforce.

      I am having real difficulties figuring out why a copyright owner would complain about it if AT&T performed the method. I also have difficulty figuring out why a government would care if the copyright owner did not.

      If it is merely a method to catch the stupid, well, there are plenty of stupid people so it is not pointless.

    9. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is false. I can write a bogus client to register some hash I scraped off an index onto some tracker. But unless you actually download and verifiy pieces from me, I'm not offering or making available content to you, just a hash. And until you download and verify pieces, I could, through my bastardized client, be offering you /dev/urandom. It would appear as 'bad data, peer blocked' to you.

      No case has ever been made in court using verified data.
      Because no defendant has ever thought to make them prove their prosecution of 'making available' beyond some hash and IP being present in their scrapes, which with my bogus client has obviously faked.

    10. Re:Obvious by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      2 variants. 1) THEIR bastardized client feeds a /dev/urandom to downloaders and logs their addresses in process. 2) YOU use existence of such a client to show that you haven't sent a real file and are innocent as a result.

      First variant is obviously detectable and easily punishable. Wikipedia states that the hashes are SHA-1 so it is VERY VERY DIFFICULT to feed a random data with correct hash. So every data error is the cause for total ban, and if needed the corresponding distributed banhammer will be produced.

      Second variant is IMPOSSIBLE. You may make every client you like. But if you use it, it will immediately disrupt the system while giving nothing to you personally (you cannot download with this client - you will be banned). If you use it to show that you have no such file - it's enough just to have no such file. Result will be the same. And you cannot even make a legal precedent since if they don't have a real chunk from you they will never sue.

      Of course, if the SHA-1 is crackable, it would be a fun to supply a noise to known *AA IP addresses. But still it will NOT set a precedent.

      You may set the upload speed to 0 - the adversary will see that you have the file but will be unable to download, check and sue. But it will disrupt the basic idea that the peer should give more than take.

    11. Re:Obvious by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      You've just ran into a net neutrality issue. There have been and would potentially be more law suits regarding legitimate services being denied on particular networks.

      http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Sued-For-Traffic-Shaping-Again-92039
      http://www.lawsof.com/page/Bell-Canada-Sued-For-Shaping-Internet-Traffic.html

      Issues arise as they are also throttling things like VOIP services as well. Suspected reasons is to encourage people to purchase their services for communication, long distance etc, by crippling cheaper alternatives that exist on their network. The issue rises from the concept that consumes have paid for a service with a specific amount of speed and permitted volume throughput. Consumers believe they are entitled to do what they want with what they were advertised and paid for. ISP's get upset when people actually make use of their services, and also if their services are providing them with cheaper phone alternatives etc.

      It's similar if you paid for an All Season pass to football games or the such, and when you actually started going, the company got upset because they sold your seat to someone else as well, and now they need to invest in more seats.
      Or if say Duracell sold flashlights, and you purchased one. Then Duracell got upset that you started using energizer batteries in the flashlight instead.
      So they started dimming the flashlight, and tell you if you want full brightness, you have to use Duracell batteries only.

      You'd be upset, you paid for the flashlight.

      They need to stop overselling their seats to cheat the competition by appearing to offer much better seats when it's not true.
      Plus in generally they need to stop offering blanket services and then saying but only if you do exactly what we say with it.
      There's probably a lot of physical object comparisons I can use that make these practices unacceptable.

      I realize my comment / opinion doesn't really cover situations where file sharing is primarily being used for copyrighted material, but the biggest problem with their methods of attempting to curb that can easily be applied to bad practices if the data is legal.
      People seem to behave as if the ISP's wouldn't do this if the volume of transfer was all legal and legitimate.
      I think they just need a better way of handling copyright infringement, or business need to adopt a different business model to stay in business with the way the world is these days.

      I don't think trying to make laws so they can stay profitable the same way their existing business model works is turning out to be that effective.

    12. Re:Obvious by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's actually standard procedure on season ticket sales. Likewise airlines. It wouldn't be economical otherwise.

    13. Re:Obvious by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      You're right for the All Season Pass, on reflection that's a poor example since you don't get reserved seats. It would be perfect if you were given a specific seat number and it was taken when you arrived. More like if you reserved a particular seat in first class on an airline.

      My flashlight example still remains strong however.

  6. Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need to do is use I2P/Phantom/Tor to run your own filesharing ecosystems contained completely within those networks.
    There is no need to 'exit' to the clearnet, just set up everything internally.
    You are essentially untrackable at that point and this whole decades long bullshit about RIAA, snooping tech, shaping, blah blah fucking blah goes away.
    Zero fear of reprisal allows you to share everything you have 24x7x365, proudly and with freedom.
    The speeds are totally reasonable... uncompressed full DVD rips in well under a day.
    The only thing you need to do is give up your stupid mentality demanding to download everything right this instant in real time.
    Set up your queue and come back in a day or so. You can deal with it.
    And make sure you dedicate lots of free bandwidth to your node to support the network you're on because your impact is equivalent to the number of hops, usually 6-10x.
    Trust me, those are more than a fair trades to gain essentially 100% security for 'sharing' purposes.

    1. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your impact is equivalent to the number of hops, usually 6-10x

      If that is not enough incentive for network operators to stop looking too closely what's on their network, I don't know what is. The next step in the arms race will create an order of magnitude more traffic just to hide from the nosy ISPs. "Sir, torrent traffic is down ninety percent, but I2P traffic is up more than six times what we saved on torrent traffic."

    2. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

      Due to modern snooping tech, it's quite unwise to believe that any amount of noise will hide anything.

    3. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You would reveal the ability to track closed system onion routing traffic in order to catch someone who downloaded a Justin Bieber album?

    4. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is I2P even really safe yet? All I've heard is that it hasn't been tested for security yet.

    5. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Get a few friends, set up Retroshare. The encryption in it isn't great, so don't count on it to keep the NSA out (1024-bit RSA should hold them back for a few minutes), but cracking it is still well beyond the abilities of any anti-piracy organisation or contractor.

    6. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one can see inside anonymous networks. Therefore it becomes a freedom of speech issue. Therefore it is not a problem. Unless you don't want to speak freely and go to jail for it. Or you don't want to pay a little bit more to support your free speech bandwidth.
      Oh, I forgot, you're all cheap bastards who demand to have everything right fucking now.
      Well, that will get you jailed.
      Pony up some bucks and time and do it the right way instead, once and for all.

    7. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, retroshare is garbage. Read up on it, there are central points of trust. All you're doing by not using strong anonymity software is playing whack a mole. It's your stupid mentality... u want it all right now just as fast and cheap and friendly easy to use billions of peers as you can get it. That's not the right way to be thinking if you care about civil lawsuits, civil/criminal jailtime and all sorts of big world issues around this.

    8. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1024-bit RSA should hold them back for a few minutes)

      They're not magic, you know.

    9. Re:Use Encrypted Anonymous Networks Instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speeds are totally reasonable... uncompressed full DVD rips in well under a day.

      If that's the case most people would just go and buy the DVD instead...

      What i want is a legal way to watch any content ever produced from the comfort of my home, all without having to search the web for it / order it and wait for a week / watch 20 minutes of advertisement for a 40 minute episode. For this i would have no problem paying $50-150 per month depending on quality and availability to transfer and watch offline on tablets etc. And it should everything currently playing at cinemas...

  7. Reducing the amount of companies tracking torrents by olip85 · · Score: 1

    good thing!

  8. In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 3, Informative

    What do you mean by "solid adversaries"? My comrade (I live in Russia) uses Ipredator.se. There is zero possibility that Ipredator will cooperate with Russian copyright agency or Russian anti-extremist agency (There is also consumer rights agency that censors against suicide etc but there are no criminal fees for such violations). And is zero possibility that YOUR solid adversaries such as NSA, CIA aso will cooperate with OUR adversaries as FSB, KGB, NKVD, GULAG aso for pressing Ipredator.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if ran by for instance the Pirate Bay people or Bahnhof I would assume they would go pretty far to not bend over.

      I don't know who's behind IPredator (Trygghetsbolaget i Lund AB.)
      But chances are it's similar people.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I think it's sad Assange doesn't feel safe here and what we rather than Iceland isn't the place where you want to be in the Snowden case.

      Though maybe we're not that far appart. But still.

      More freedom please, not less.

      Maybe the government need to think about some of the positive consequences which can come from that to.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by loosescrews · · Score: 2

      Ipredator is run by The Pirate Bay.

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And is zero possibility that YOUR solid adversaries such as NSA, CIA aso will cooperate with OUR adversaries as FSB, KGB, NKVD, GULAG aso for pressing Ipredator.

      Why? Why wouldn't our governments tell each other their citizen's secrets? It's not like they care about them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Mostly because anytime Putin can tell the US to go to hell, it saves him from having to use a Viagra.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia the pr0n downloads YOU! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Ipredator is run by The Pirate Bay.

      Linked text:
      "Despite being related to The Pirate Bay it is not run by anyone affiliated with The Pirate Bay. All technical matters are handled by Portlane Networks who also run Anonine and Relakks.[3]"

  9. here is an idea by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

    quit overselling your network and spend more time developing your crappy network rather than being the media companies bitch

    win win

    1. Re:here is an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, and it's not really about the files of the media companies. this is about the fact that the people are communicating directly with one another and sharing files. this is the real threat to these compaines who want to turn the internet into cable tv. "piracy" is just the excuse they need to monitor and interfere with the traffic people paid for. scumbag P's O S! but just like governments, all we have to do is defund them and they shrivel up and die. but will we?

  10. Hey... thats illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you use encrypted connections for your torrent client. What AT&T is doing is a violation of the DMCA...

    Lets get the lawyers on it.

  11. Magic Button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So since they have a "magic button", does that mean they can get sued every time they fail to stop someone?

    1. Re:Magic Button by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

      I was wondering the same thing. Doesn't this invalidate their common carrier status?

    2. Re:Magic Button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny because common carrier was originally intended to protect the ISP's from US.

      Now we are trying to us it to protect us from THEM.

  12. we asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We threw down the gauntlet that we would always pirate and they figured out a way to beat us. No matter that it will mean the death of freedom for all - the RIAA/MPAA will get their fucking money.

    1. Re: we asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm missing it, but how did they 'beat us' exactly?

      I don't torrent, or have AT&T for my provider, so ... what gives? And yes. I occasionally pirate.

    2. Re:we asked for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How have they beat us? Encryption. Don't use torrents. They haven't beat us at all.

  13. maybe this is a solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe it's so they can identify popular photon and electron streams and then
    on a very speedy side connection quickly grab the torrent so they can seed it
    as a local-peer inside their own network?
    it MUST be cheaper to local-peer seed then grab it from iceland or india?

  14. Re:Hey... thats illegal. by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 2

    No. Other peer makes a crypto handshake with you, and you voluntarily agree to establish an encrypted link with him. After this, you have no "They illegally decrypted my communications" excuse. Then they use the standard Bittorrent protocol to request any part of the file, and you voluntarily agree to send it. They get it from your IP. You are caught.

  15. Send a hard drive around via a shipping company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some kids I know do this a few times a year. A 2 TB
    hard drive can move a lot of files.

    No use of the web required, and if you encrypt the volume
    prying eyes will not easily see what is inside.

  16. That's right folks, by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    Step right up and get yer patent because the PURPOSE to which data is put , the semantic intention of the consumers of the data is now a distinguishing factor which permits another, new, patent to be applied.

    I'd write more but I am getting a patent on capturing the data stream of people looking for a information used in job searches...

    Fuck, the Dewey Decimal system of categorization is loaded with potential patents one for each topic when people search on. We've barely begun to mine the gold in them yar hills.

    yeeeeeeHAW !!!!

  17. Great news! by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    If they patent it, all the others ISPs won't be using this sort of tech to annoy it's users.

  18. Re:Hey... thats illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Circumvention of an access control mechanisim"

    You're using encryption to keep scumbags out. Like at&t. Who cares if it's not very good for that.

    They're still breaking the law. because the law was stupid.

  19. The subhead is incorrect. by edibobb · · Score: 1

    "Internet provider AT&T has patented a new technology..." The technology is NOT new. As such, it was awarded a patent.

  20. AT&T is throttling.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Youtube as well... google for it...

  21. A Patent for Wire Tapping? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I think I'll patent for observing drug testing. I'll charge AT&T everytime they think of a new patent.

  22. Don't support ATT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to get rid of ATT! Don't use their services.