June 21st, 2006
AT&T: Your Data? Nah, It’s Really Ours
By Michael Santo
Contributing Writer, RealTechNews
AT&T may have having a good week in their book, but not in mine. After last weekend’s story about AT&T amazing “naked DSL” savings, you would have thought I would have learned and read an email they sent me about their changes to their Privacy Policy more carefully. Well, I did. And so did David Lazarus of the San Francisco Chronicle. These changes take affect on Friday, and basically give AT&T a lot more flexibility when dealing with customer information.
Under its former privacy policy, introduced in September 2004, AT&T said it might use customer’s data “to respond to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to the extent required and/or permitted by law.”
The new version, which is specifically for Internet and video customers, is much more explicit about the company’s right to cooperate with government agencies in any security-related matters — and AT&T’s belief that customers’ data belongs to the company, not customers.
“While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T,” the new policy declares. “As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.” Source: SFGate
We Say: Obviously this is in response to AT&T’s alleged participation in NSA wiretapping. These changes would protect AT&T from any potential lawsuits (they are already being sued by the EFF over the aforementioned wiretapping cooperation) they might otherwise face in the future. And the new policy affects records of viewing habits of users of AT&T’s new video services as well.
I’ve stuck with DSL partly because of cost. If I switched to cable, I’d pay an extra fee because I would continue to use satellite. However, if I totally drop landline service, it’s pretty much a wash. This could be something I look into when my contract expires later this year. I’m just not comfortable with this policy change.
jb says:
Unfortunately, your privacy is guaranteed neither with cable nor satellite/cell.
The others just haven’t hit the news yet.
Perhaps a regime change change in this fall’s elections may help, but I have my doubts.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:22 am
MarcosV says:
It’s a pity that that there’s no effective oversight to prevent abuse. The current laws aren’t tough enough on those who violate /abuse privacy and the government doesn’t fund sufficient resources to ensure whatever privacy laws that are past are properly enforced.
Orwellian society is here and it’s only 22or so years late.
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:48 am
Lockergnome's Tech News Watch says:
AT&T: Your Data? Nah, It’s Really Ours
Michael Santo of RealTechNews writes: AT&T may be having a good week in its book, but not in mine. After last weekend’s story about AT&T’s amazing “naked DSL” savings, you would have thought I would have learned and read an email it sent me about t…
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Rich says:
If I use a product, walk into a store, does that mean now the company owns me and my kids? This is worse then renting! I really hope my landlady isn’t putting a camera in my apartment. LOL.
Americans know how to switch when they are being abused. ATnT thinks they have some sort of control but we also have control and we will switch to Comcast or Vonage. You’re messing with the wrong people ATnT, as we don’t totally depend on the mommy government like you do.
If that doesn’t work maybe Google can give out free wireless. In the end our rights will be protected; U.S. Constitution or not.
All in the name of Terrorism, it filters down! The Constitution is not perfect because it allows for this absolute power. We’re going to have to modify the Constitution probably or limit the machine. It starts with the Democrates this year but to me they haven’t helped much either. The only reason I might ask people to vote for them if they would trim allot of fat from the government, parcel out allot to non-profits that seem to do a much better job (Read: Linux). The government has to get allot smaller. It’s too much. We can monitor ourselves with ICANN etc. on the Internet.
Man may make any law desited but a law that goes against what we feel is our basic free rights as human beings, especially in America, is no law that should be accepted.
Another Tea Party is required!
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 am
p crofoot says:
you don’t have to vote for the dems they are the same as the republicans!
VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY!!! LIKE CONSERVETIVE OR LIBATERION OR ANY OTHER SMALL PARTY!
They will not get elected BUT THIS IS NOT A WASTED VOTE!
You will be sending a message to the major parties that the party you voted for has policies you want.
And trust me the major parties keep a very close eye on all the small
parties and how many votes they get, god forbid those little parties should get big enought to give them any real competion.
SEND A MESSAGE TO THE MAJOR PARTIES! Start lisening to the people or start looking for real jobs.
Gray
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:24 am
Miliukov says:
AT&T OWNS COMCAST, GENIUS! LOL; YOU’RE FUCKED EITHER WAY! THE CORPORATIONS HAVE THEIR HANDS SO FAR UP WASHINTON’S ASS THAT THE ONLY HOPE FOR REAL CHANGE IS THE CREATION OF A STRONG 3RD PARTY, A PARTY THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE, AND IS CAPABLE OF OVERTHROWING THIS CORRUPT TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
June 24th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Chimay says:
The system is completely stacked against a third party.
Presidential debates used to be sponsored by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. This role has been usurped by the two major parties since the 1988 elections.
Back in 1987, the two parties got together to form a cartel known as the “Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates”.
Realizing that the word “Bipartisan” blatantly revealed their intention to exclude third parties, the word was later dropped the from their title.
Ross Perot who had captured nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 was excluded from the 1996 debates by the commission, claiming he had no realistic chance of election. Ralph Nader was excluded in 2000.
—————————————————–
Open Debates Files Complaint with the IRS Against the Commission on Presidential Debates
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=28635
No to Closed Presidential Debates
http://www.debatethis.org/
Commission on Presidential Debates
http://www.debates.org/
June 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Steve says:
AT&T does not own Comcast. Comcast purchazed the former AT&T cable division. That AT&T is no longer in business. The current AT&T was created out of what the remenants of AT&T that SBC purchased. SBC then renamed it self to AT&T.
Now as far the article goes, if AT&T has changed the terms of service, most contracts allow you to cancel service with out penelty. The only problem is that almost all new ISP service contracts will have a similar clause added to them in the next year or so. The work around have your own email and web server and only use the ISP for connectivity.
June 26th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Zman says:
“…most contracts allow you to cancel service with out penelty. The only problem is that almost all new ISP service contracts will have a similar clause added to them in the next year or so. The work around have your own email and web server and only use the ISP for connectivity.”
I’m not sure if I understood the above comment correctly. If it was in relation to avoiding “data archival”, do a background search for Akamai servers. With some 18,000 (known) relays/servers and ATnT in the mix, I think the NSA, FBI and “CALEA” have their hands full with “Internet data”.
Heres a “small” jump start:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59806-2004Sep29.html
There are few work arounds. Your “personal” data still passes through one or more “tagged” servers/relays (even if you have your own). You’d be suprised at some of the information currently “withheld” and without ransom
“Bi-partisan”, hmmm… I’m not sure about any “bi-optionals”. These days its seems to be turning more towards “communist” and nearing “martial law” then “choice”.
“Of the people, by the people, –> FOR
June 27th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Zman says:
(Part2) “Of the people, by the people, –> FOR
June 27th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Zman says:
Ok.. this “comment system” is broke! “Of the people, by the people, –FOR– the people?
But which people? And for god sakes, what ever you do, dont go screaming about your “Constitutional Rights”, you may just be considered a “Terrorist” and find yourself in the brig:
http://www.infowars.com/constitutional_terrorists.htm (”forgive me father… its been x-days since my last confession.”)
I guess Preists may soon become chaplains in the military? Oh wait, they’ve already begun promotion. So much for “seperation of Church and State”. Then again, “One Nation, under God, …Indivisible? With Liberty? and Justice for ALL?”
I am neither for or against a “Wild West” as in a time past but:
I guess one good part shall be when/if martial law comes to be declared the gun activists will be content as everyone will yield their “Right To Bear Arms” (as set by our forefathers in the Constitu ummm… .nvm). Yes, the content will be content until they find themselves trapped by all those gun wielding criminals who will blatantly disregard any and all “lawful” action, whether good or bad, and when our nations military has become over incumbent to the needs abroad or in other areas on their own conetent, far from yours or “ours”, you wont have a friendly neighbor with a means to save you
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it! -Z
June 27th, 2006 at 10:37 am