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."

Pearl Jam webcast was censored by AT+T

[by Anonymous Coward]

FYI...

http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195 [pearljam.com]

Re:Big Company == Arm of the Government

[halber_mensch (851834)]

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?

Capitulation == Confirmation

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

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.

Re:Capitulation == Confirmation

[Aladrin (926209)]

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.

Paging Lily Tomlin

[User 956 (568564)]

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.

Re:

[ericrost (1049312)]

They may be the phone company, but around here for internet service, they have some pretty stiff competition, (my ISP which is the cable company, another Cable Modem provider that's strangely not a cable company, dish which i know sucks but is there). The ISP I'm with kicks their but for speed/price, so that's who I chose, but the fact is that unlike most areas for phone service, there are options for your ISP.

So they do have to care a little. Granted, cable companies are no gems when it comes to customer s

But... but... what about the children?!?

[QCompson (675963)]

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 [slashdot.org]

Now the only reasonable question is: does AT&T support child exploitation?

Re:

[transporter_ii (986545)]

No, they had the TOS, not to stop the exploitation of children, but to stop people criticizing AT&T's exploitation of children. As it turns out, they provide the phone service to the most heinous, blatant, and vile exploitation of children on the planet...Disneyland .

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Now the only reasonable question is: does AT&T support child exploitation?

No. They still have language in there explicitly says that they can cut your account for illegal activity. When referring to 'child exploitation', they probably mean 'kiddie pr0n,' which in the U.S. and other Western industrial nations is, at least the last time I checked, illegal.

Re:

[Random832 (694525)]

Now the only reasonable question is: does AT&T support child exploitation?

No. They still have language in there explicitly says that they can cut your account for illegal activity.

But that was there before! (which made the claim that the language people was complaining about was for that purpose a bit hard to believe)

This is a very Good Thing.

[dpbsmith (263124)]

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.

Re:

[schwaang (667808)]

When the policy is written down and the lawyers get involved, they fence in a square mile in order to protect an acre.

You can blame the lawyers if you want, but someone had to instruct them that they wanted to add the right to pull the plug on anyone or anything that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries."

That could not have been added by accidental over-lawyering, IMHO.

Original language

[dotancohen (1015143)]

For those looking for the original language of the TOS, here it is from Google's cache:

5.1 Suspension/Termination. Your Service may be suspended or terminated if your payment is past due and such condition continues un-remedied for thirty (30) days. In addition, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (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, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

It has been changed to:

5.1 Suspension/Termination. AT&T respects freedom of expression and believes it is a foundation of our free society to express differing points of view. 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. However, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; or (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.. Your Service may be suspended or terminated if your payment is past due and such condition continues un-remedied for thirty (30) days. Termination or suspension by AT&T of Service also constitutes termination or suspension (as applicable) of your license to use any Software. AT&T may also terminate or suspend your Service if you provide false or inaccurate information that is required for the provision of Service or is necessary to allow AT&T to bill you for Service.

It's the original section 5.1(c) that caused the whole uproar:

AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes... ...tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

Change in Tone only; not policy

[Tungbo (183321)]

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

Read it carefully...

[Peter Simpson (112887)]

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

Re:

[Aladrin (926209)]

Because there was an uproar about those specific things. Read the new policy before you say 'they can still terminate you for bashing', instead of just listening to the PR Rep and trying to pick apart the words.

Re:

[Aladrin (926209)]

Right, but that doesn't -mean- they can terminate you for any reason. It only states a few reasons that they won't. How about the rest of the policy?

However, AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; or (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including

For now ...

[jc42 (318812)]

... 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.

Depends which threat you're talking about

[abb3w (696381)]

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

Ok, it's a start

[mrAgreeable (47829)]

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?

Re:

[The_Mystic_For_Real (766020)]

What point is the law if there are no consequences of breaking it? AT&T respects the right to free speech, downloading kiddie porn and conspiring/threatening to kill the President are ACTIONS.

In fact they may not be going far enough, shutting down accounts is a temporary nuisance, if they see criminal activity, they have an obligation to society to bring it to the government's attention. Look, if you don't like the laws, get out there on the soap box, and fight to change them. Until then you will hav

Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech

[lordofthechia (598872)]

kiddie porn and conspiring/threatening to kill the President

Whoa there, somewhere an FBI monitoring program is going ape shit...

Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech

[Gr8Apes (679165)]

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.

Re:

[The_Mystic_For_Real (766020)]

their "job" as an ISP is to provide you service. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then whose job is it to provide security? Just because some of us don't want to pay for proprietary software licenses, does not mean we need to leave the vast portion of the population defenseless against the scammers and worse that lurk on the net. We all know about these dangers, we laugh when we get 419 spam, others aren't so knowledgeable.

The solution can't just be education, if we tried that we would have 6 billion IT pros

Re:

[poetmatt (793785)]

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.

Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech

[The_Mystic_For_Real (766020)]

Nobody's born a techie, but some people are too stubborn to evolve/learn. Usually we call them Jehova's Witnesses or bible thumpers.

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?

Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech

[poetmatt (793785)]

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.

Re:

[fistfullast33l (819270)]

as usual, in a way, Darwin has the correct answer.

Somewhere, an evangelical conservative just died.

Re:

[Fujisawa Sensei (207127)]

Then whose job is it to provide security?

I've never seen an ISP do this yet, what makes you think they're actually going to start doing this anytime in the future?

Re:

[Shakrai (717556)]

I've never seen an ISP do this yet, what makes you think they're actually going to start doing this anytime in the future?

He was probably referring to doing stuff like blocking port 25 to silence spam bots, or blocking the Windows file sharing ports to prevent worms. Many ISPs do this and similar stuff.

I would also argue that there are things that any responsible system administrator (particularly at an ISP) should do as a public service to the rest of the internet. For example, if your edge router allows packets to leave your network that have source addresses that are obviously forged (source addresses in IP ranges you

Re:

[Sique (173459)]

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?

Re:

[ultranova (717540)]

Then whose job is it to provide security?

Police's. You know, the people who get paid to "serve and protect" ? Possibly army's or secret service's, if we are talking about Threats with capital T.

Just because some of us don't want to pay for proprietary software licenses, does not mean we need to leave the vast portion of the population defenseless against the scammers and worse that lurk on the net. We all know about these dangers, we laugh when we get 419 spam, others aren't so knowledgeable.

I am d

Re:

[speaker of the truth (1112181)]

Actually, their "job" as an ISP is to provide you service.

It is the duty of each and every American to report illegal and immoral activities when we find it. The law might not demand it, but we as a society should ask no less of ourselves.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[speaker of the truth (1112181)]

Just to clarify (as I can't tell if you understood the point or not). The illegal AND immoral meant that both qualifiers had to be met before an Americans duty comes into play. If, for instance, you saw someone doing something legal but moral, it wouldn't be your duty to report it. On the other hand if you say someone doing something immoral but legal it also wouldn't be your duty to report it.

Frankly, if Americans minded their own business more, I think America would be a much better place.

Yes, that's why I imagine victims of rape, murder and thievery are so glad to have everyone look the other way whi

Re:

[Anarke_Incarnate (733529)]

They did say MORE and not EVERY DAMN TIME. If somebody is being hurt or threatened with harm, that is VERY different than say somebody showing a picture of his 17 5/8 yr old ex g/f to his buddy from back when he was 18

Re:

[Khaed (544779)]

I don't disagree with you, but AT&T, or anyone else who doesn't know the girl, would have a hard damn time telling if a girl was 17 5/8 or 18. 16/17/18/19, hard to be sure.

But a 12 year old? 10? 8? Easy to tell she's not 18.

And that follows... how?

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

Otherwise, we all might as well get chipped with GPS locators and audio/video recorders and route everything to your nearest friendly community overlord.

And that follows on from your original statement... how? Merging monitoring/enforcement into ISPs doesn't plunge you directly into a surveillance state.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait (986083)]

You stress the government connection too much. They don't sponsor them to police/monitor the net. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest a conspiracy without benefit. The government doesn't gain anything if they secretly finance the ISPs to monitor traffic. There may be political benefit if it were done publicly, because ISPs are in the prime position to conduct effective monitoring/policing.

you're about half a step from a police state.

Yeah. One moment your eyes are open, people vote to throw out governme

Re:

[Eivind (15695)]

The border between action and speech isn't always so clear-cut.

If downloading speech is an unprotected "action", then free speech ain't worth much, since the govt can just forbid people from performing the "action" of viewing it. (there's no way you can view content from the internet without first downloading it)

Furthermore, to "speak" on the internet you need to perform any number of "actions", such as "push the on-button on your computer" and "upload the content to a webserver", if they can restrict these

Re:

[Opportunist (166417)]

In other words, the freedom to speak ain't worth jack if there is no freedom to hear.

Re:

[Eivind (15695)]

Yeah. And freedom to -distribute- what you say, in however way is apropriate to the message. Be it by soundwaves or ip-packets.

Re:

[brunes69 (86786)]

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.

Re:

[erroneus (253617)]

I'm not sure what country YOU live in, but here, in Fantasy-Land-USA, we are innocent until proven guilty. It is not for corporate entities to determine guilt. It may be for them to turn over evidence of any given suspicious activity, but it is not for them to cast judgment upon their customers by cutting off their access.

Seems as though every time we turn around, there's another example of how corporate entities are attempting to step in and become government and/or police.

Re:

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

In fact they may not be going far enough, shutting down accounts is a temporary nuisance, if they see criminal activity, they have an obligation to society to bring it to the government's attention.

I wonder how coincidental it is that the President is at this very moment asking for retroactive immunity from any prosecution, criminal or civil, for AT&T that might arise out of their cooperation in the wiretapping of American citizens without warrants. Just the fact that Bush thinks this immunity is so

Re:

[Rogerborg (306625)]

More precisely, for "conduct that AT&T believes violates blah blah blah". Oh, and note "any law". Hmm, how about Chinese laws? Or Iranian? Or some really God awful repressive third world dictatorship, like Australia. So in effect, they can shut you down for any reason that they want; they just have 'believee' that you may have broken a law somewhere in the world.

Re:

[Timberwolf0122 (872207)]

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.

Re:

[Belacgod (1103921)]

So I expect the complaints about its ToS to die down the day its regional monopolies are rescinded.

Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech

[houstonbofh (602064)]

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.

Re:

[dcollins (135727)]

A single person choosing another ISP does nothing to check business practices. Speaking out and publicly persuading large numbers of people to do so may be somewhat effective in some cases. Politically mobilizing and passing legislation and enforcement to protect everyone from undesirable business practices is the real check in a democracy.