Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Censorship

AT&T Issues Formal 'Censorship' Apology 98

Posted by samzenpus from the just-kidding dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AT&T Issues Formal 'Censorship' Apology More

AT&T Issues Formal 'Censorship' Apology

Comments Filter:

  • Pearl Jam webcast was censored by AT+T (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11, 2007 @06:56AM (#20938149)
    FYI...

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

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by empaler ( 130732 )

      FYI...

      http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195 [pearljam.com]
      Nono, it wasn't censorship - can't you see, they said it was an accidunt. Geez, some people are just looking for problems so they can't point and shout...
  • However, they still reserve the right to terminate your service if you break a law or violate their TOS.

    Seems to me like they don't respect your right to free speech at all. If they can shut you down for any violation of law (perhaps something as innocuous as downloading images that violate your community's standards or post intent to do harm to the President in an online forum), then they respect the law, not your rights.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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 (Score:5, Funny)

        by lordofthechia ( 598872 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:21AM (#20938323)

        kiddie porn and conspiring/threatening to kill the President
        Whoa there, somewhere an FBI monitoring program is going ape shit...

        • kiddie porn and conspiring/threatening to kill the President

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

          Yeah, the message poster should have checked the "Post Anonymously" box ;-)

      • Re:AT&T respects your right to free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:22AM (#20938333)
        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: (Score:1)

          by empaler ( 130732 )

          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.

          Yeah, people would never, ever [nseries.com] allow that.

          Seriously, if you want to have a private conversation, ban cell phones from the premises - even turned-off phones are a liability.

        • 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: (Score:3, Funny)

            by 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

              by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:54AM (#20938563)
              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 (Score:4, Insightful)

                by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @08:12AM (#20938729) Journal
                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.

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

              Somewhere, an evangelical conservative just died.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AuMatar ( 183847 )
                Thats all it takes? Cool. Time to bring out the basic

                10 Print "as usual, in a way, Darwin has the correct answer."
                20 GOTO 10
            • The problem is that the "evolutionary imperative" in these instances are much more strong on the rest of the population than it is on the people who leave their machines open. They just suffer from a slow computer, and often blame the manufacturer/OS/etc. not themselves. We however have to deal with spam reaching critical mass, DDoS, etc.

              Unfortunately, if you want to leave it to "evolution", as far as "evolve or die" goes, we are the ones that will need to do it, not the unlearned.
              • Umm since when was it our job to hold hands for the poor? Teaching people about computers without them being willing I would compare to giving money to the hobo who wants to buy liquor. Sounds nice, makes you feel good and idealistic, but isn't going to change the situation next time around. Give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish argument. It's like expecting people to watch an annoying flash advertisement on the internet. Lets not play "shift the blame away from those whose fault it actually is".

                This is

          • 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: (Score:3)

            by 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?

          • 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

        • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

            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
            • 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

              • 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: (Score:2)

                  by 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.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
                Actually, I believe it only your duty to report illegal activities.

                Your example victims are all cases of illegal activities, morality plays no part there.

                I believe you actually meant it's your "legal and moral duty to report illegal activities". I'm sure your "immoral" aspect was meant to qualify truly "must report" illegal activities from such travesties of justice such as going 66 in a 65 speed zone or crossing in the middle of a deserted street, which are also both illegal in many areas.

                • I'm sure your "immoral" aspect was meant to qualify truly "must report" illegal activities from such travesties of justice such as going 66 in a 65 speed zone or crossing in the middle of a deserted street, which are also both illegal in many areas.
                  Exactly. Or if you lived in Nazi Germany having to report someone as hiding a jew, which while illegal would have been the moral thing to do.
            • So what's the difference between "unjust" and "immoral?" Who gets to decide? That's why we have laws.

        • 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: (Score:1)

            by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
            Because if private (government sponsored monopoly) companies start doing monitoring and policing as an extension of the government, you're about half a step from a police state.
            • 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

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

          Is that not what our cell phones are for?
        • The only problem with this theory is the fact that it is inconsequential for ISPs to catch a number of internet based illegal activities. More complicated for things like kiddie porn would require a breach of privacy (I don't believe they should be able to actively view what we are doing online), but pretty simple for things like DDoS or spam do not. In these instances, it is very easy to prevent them without not infringing on privacy, by watching the volume of traffic and sudden fluctuations or blocking so

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
            I'd say the entire packet is the envelope. Opening it just for header info can be just as revealing as reading the contents. It's one of the reasons why early on everyone equated email with postcards, and encrypted email with envelopes. Encryption doesn't guarantee privacy as all of it can be broken, but it at least makes it non-trivial if someone wants to casually read it. That would be very similar to reading mail in envelopes.
        • Um, not quite...at least not in the USA

          Kiddie porn is a federal offense. PERIOD.

          In fact, it is itself a federal offense to aid or abet the comission of a federal offense, and that includes turning a blind eye after you see it.

          So, as long as AT&T looks the other way, they can let it go. But the minute someone at AT&T knows you're distributing kiddie porn, technically, they are now ON NOTICE that you are using their services to perpetuate a federal offense, which in turn puts THEM on the hook for ai

      • Re: (Score:2)

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

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 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.

      • 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.

      • 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: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )
        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.

        So you're saying that AT&T has the right to charge you with a crime, judge you guilty, and sentence you to punishment...as long as it's restricted to withdrawal of personal (or corporate) communication?

        Sorry, that's not the way "justice" is done. "Justice" means that lawyers fight it out in court.

        I say "justic
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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.
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @08:49AM (#20939141)
        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.
      • 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.
    • However, they still reserve the right to terminate your service if you break a law or violate their TOS.

      Seems to me like they don't respect your right to free speech at all. If they can shut you down for any violation of law (perhaps something as innocuous as downloading images that violate your community's standards or post intent to do harm to the President in an online forum), then they respect the law, not your rights.

      It seems like you are confusing right to free speech with some weird belief tha
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:12AM (#20938251)
      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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Yoozer ( 1055188 )

        Now, in a matter of hours, millions of people can be informed of a looming issue and speak out about it
        They call this "inboxer rebellion" at Snopes and it goes lost in a mass of false positives, deafness to crying wolf and utterly stupid Youtube comments plus a dozen Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:'s from 200 aggregated Hotmail addresses.

  • Paging Lily Tomlin (Score:2, Informative)

    by 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.
    • 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?!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by QCompson ( 675963 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:16AM (#20938287)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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.

      • 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. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:27AM (#20938363) Homepage
    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.

    • 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.
    • 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.

      They didn't mention criticism of AT&T corporation, or its employees, products, and services. I'm sure that was just an oversight, like the first draft was. They knew it wasn't political speech that people were expecting to be censored.

      I also find the contrast of their new statement amusing. We respect our customers, buuuuuut we will immediate

    • 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.

      A better analogy (IMO) would be to fence in a acre (protection for a greater area) to protect a square mile.

      Also, I'm assuming you meant a square-shaped acre not a square acre, as a square acre would

  • Original language (Score:3, Informative)

    by dotancohen ( 1015143 ) on Thursday October 11, 2007 @07:32AM (#20938401) Homepage
    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.
    • 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )
      So they're still claiming the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Low justice only, of course.

      I wonder what their status is on middle justice? If they terminate your account, can they still charge you for it until the end of your contract?

      And, of course, high justice is reserved to the monarch.
  • 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: (Score:2)

      by 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: (Score:1)

        by iago-vL ( 760581 )

        He was actually quoting from the new policy:

        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.

        He's right that it only says they won't terminate your account for three reasons. If you do anything else, it seems, they may terminate your account.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by 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

          • 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?

            Right, because a TOS can still be voided in a court of law if it's found to violate basic rights.

    • Because when you write a contract it is impossible to anticipate all possibilities. If they listed EVERYTHING they can ban you for, it would go on forever, or be so broad as to cover literally everything. However, by this phrase they resolve the controversial issue without causing their lawyers to bill them a couple of hundred thousand dollars by drawing up an exorbitant amount of clauses.
  • ... 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.

  • 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

  • The original article [networkworld.com] says:

    ...AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service ... for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy...

    For all I know, they just moved their censorship provisions to the Acceptable Use Policy. They don't give a URL or cryptographic checksum for it, so they could claim later that any document at all is the Acceptable Use Policy mentioned in the original contract.

    It bugs me when people include unavailable documents by re

  • 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?

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close