AT&T Announces Plans to Filter Copyright Content 436
An anonymous reader writes "The LA Times reports that AT&T has announced plans to work with the Hollywood movie studios and major recording labels to implement new content filtering systems on their network. The plans raise many troubling legal issues including privacy concerns, false positive filtering, and liability for failure to filter."
Ouch. (Score:2, Informative)
No surprise here (Score:4, Informative)
Most notable is the current lawsuit against them alleging collusion with the NSA in massive illegal domestic wiretapping [eff.org].
ISPs are not common carriers. (Score:4, Informative)
piratebay blocked (Score:5, Informative)
This is all well and good if it's like a parental control thing but I'm a 50 year old paying customer and I'm not used to getting flipped off by my ISP. I suppose I should be looking over my shoulder.
Re:Ouch. (Score:2, Informative)
AT&T is NOT AT&T, it is SBC. (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that everything else of value in the original AT&T was sold piece-by-piece, and SBC bought mostly just the name. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers bought another name.
Apparently, for $16 Billion SBC got AT&T's VOIP [businessweek.com] customers, and the AT&T name.
AT&T's VOIP customers were Sheila and Gerald Funk, who have since moved to Elbonia. Wait... That last sentence my contain an error.
So, what we are seeing is SBC mismanagement under a new name. Soon just saying the name AT&T will cause people to become upset.
Communications Decency Act Section 230 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SSL For All My Friends! (Score:2, Informative)
You don't have to make it impossible for ISPs to see what is being transferred, only make it so hard that it's no longer economically feasible for them to do so.
Re:SSL For All My Friends! (Score:5, Informative)
How do you think SSH works? There is no third-party certificate server, and man-in-the-middle certainly can't defeat it.
To install a private certificate server under Apache is trivial; see for example my post [slashdot.org]. (On Windows, it is a little more complex, as that post indicates.)
The purpose of the third-party certificate is to provide some degree of trust that you are going to the web site you think you are, so that you can have some confidence that you aren't submitting your credit card number to an imposter. If all you are interested in is encryption and the prevention of man-in-the-middle interception, SSL with a private certificate server will work fine. The encryption is accomplished via public key cryptography, which allows you to exchange the private key used for the encrypted session. A third party is not required for public key cryptography to work.
Re:Ouch. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if there is any case law yet on this, but at first blush it would seem that the more selectivity the carrier applies to what content is allowed and what is blocked, the less clear it is that they are within the protection of the safe harbor. And while it might seem paradoxical that the carrier could become more liable for copyright infringement for blocking some infringing materials, there is a good reason for this—it makes a carrier choose whether it wants copyright to be the responsibility of the users (and thus, it is "hands off"), or whether it wants to seek the potential rewards (in terms of favorable details with copyright holders to monitor and enforce) along with the potential costs (in terms of liability to those whose rights are violated despite the carrier's intervention) of taking a "hands on" policy.
Re:AT&T is NOT AT&T, it is SBC. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fairly easy to by-pass filtering (Score:4, Informative)
As for traffic filtering and shaping, the battle between ISP and user will end only when they agree on QoS markings and policies that are advantageous to both. This can happen.
Re:Ouch. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ISPs are not common carriers. (Score:1, Informative)