AT&T announces its decision to filter "pirated" content from its network without harming user privacy, network neutrality, or one-time offenders. Apparently, it will do the bidding of any group whose acronym ends with "A."<BR><BR>Read More
AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I am curious how this is going to work for BitTorrent when so many people now use packet encryption by default. <BR><BR>Actually, I'm curious how it would work at all, but that's my first question.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Without human intervention, it's also tough to tell if copyrighted content is even "piracy." Fair use carves out exceptions for news reporting, criticism, and commentary (among other things) which is nearly impossible for a machine to understand in context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's easy. All they have to do is develop a Turing Plus class AI and have it scan the entire content of the Internet and compare it to it's copy of every copyrighted work. Once it flags every clip of every movie, song, composition, novel, article, essay, etc. it can grade them on newsworthiness, the quality of the critical analysis and any other criteria it's masters at the *A organizations. <BR><BR>Of course you run the risk of triggering a Singularity anytime you put an AI on the Internet.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It seems curious that they would be motivated to do this because of their new status as a quasi-cable operator. Time Warner, et al. have been providing internet services for quite a while and they don't seem to have a motivation to actively filter packets. I think there's more to this than what AT&T is publicly stating.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Happysin:<BR>I am curious how this is going to work for BitTorrent when so many people now use packet encryption by default. <BR><BR>Actually, I'm curious how it would work at all, but that's my first question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This far more difficult than even the news story suggested. In fact, AT&T can't even tell if an email is spam or not reliably, and they have a plethora of information which can be leveraged for spam (web links and source hosts for example). If they can't tell that an email is trying to sell you viagra, and the email is available in clear text, how are they going to assemble huge sets of data and determine that a movie is there?<BR><BR>And, as Happysin suggested, it is impossible in practice to defeat a variety of encryption techniques without controlling an end point.<BR><BR>I suspect that they're flapping their jaws for political reasons and don't intend to ever accomplish what they claim. What would motivate AT&T to spend as much money and resource and open as large a can of worms as this?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This sounds an awful like like unauthorized wire-tapping to me. I don't pirate, and I don't want AT&T looking at my shit. The fact that are totally going to fuck it up from the get go does not make me feel any better.<BR><BR>While they my be incompetent today odds are they wont be forever.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
One wonders if they have an idea for such magic software/hardware that can filter terabytes of data, why they're whoring themselves out to JUST do this? I can't see why they wouldn't use the same technology to -idk- stop me from needing to get my penis enlarged? Or super deals on Cialis? With the sheer volume of media flowing through the internet, I'd think they'd want to start smaller, like maybe protecting their customers from a bit more porn spam by tracking the offenders and limiting issues like this one. Since Ars has run several stories about how spam is predicted to overtake ligitimate email within a year, finding and choking off spammers and botnet sources should be a bit more of a focus IMO.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The myopia of large corporate executives never ceases to amaze me. SBC thought they could lose their customer-hostile image just by buying AT&T and assuming their name. Of course they didn't actually change any of their business practices so all they've really accomplished is to being dragging the AT&T name down into the mud, too. So much for that $16 billion.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think there's more to this than what AT&T is publicly stating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And....<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This sounds an awful like like unauthorized wire-tapping to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>Bingo.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fxds:<BR>The myopia of large corporate executives never ceases to amaze me. SBC thought they could lose their customer-hostile image just by buying AT&T and assuming their name. Of course they didn't actually change any of their business practices so all they've really accomplished is to being dragging the AT&T name down into the mud, too. So much for that $16 billion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>++<BR><BR>I work for a "BellSouth Preferred Partner" here in Savannah, GA, who has recently become an at&t "Authorized Provider" partner... and I tell you this: the level of service and competency inside the "New at&t" organization *sucks*. They can't even migrate/port a business class DSL line without an incident - we have a customer who has been without dialtone for over a WEEK now.<BR><BR>A week. That's DEATH for a small business.<BR><BR>GG at&t.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
My thanks to AT&T. <BR><BR>I cancelled my cell phone and broadband service with them and stopped buying all there products 6 years ago. <BR><BR>Its nice that At&T continue to provide me with regular reminders why.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It was mentioned that AT&T would filter on FTP and BitTorrent traffic, but that's not completely true. There are still a lot of folks who download illegal content using HTTP. That would mean AT&T would have to filter almost all traffic that passes their network. That's not kosher by me, how about you? I believe I'll be contacting my congressman about this issue and at least get my opinion and thoughts on the subject on record. As should you. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so all they've really accomplished is to being dragging the AT&T name down into the mud, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Being dragged into the mud would actually be raising AT&T <B>up</B> from where they've been for several years. The only thing worse than AT&T's consumer side is their Government Solutions division.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
i couldnt help it but when i read Dr Jacksons' comments to congress, the first thing i could think of was this...<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be… Try to make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice" – Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Even if AT&T are remotely successful - and i expect it ill be more like a huge failure - that failure is not going to be an incentive for anyone to stop doing what they are doing; if anything looks to me more like the red rag to a bull. <BR><BR>the incentive i CAN see it creating however is the incentive to encrypt, crack, evade or break the system.... hence the Lao-Tze quote came to mind.<BR><BR>the specter of an unauthorised, private wiretapping 'service' available to highest bidder is of definite alarm to me...and i dont even live in the US :|
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 04Outlander:<BR>It seems curious that they would be motivated to do this because of their new status as a quasi-cable operator. Time Warner, et al. have been providing internet services for quite a while and they don't seem to have a motivation to actively filter packets. I think there's more to this than what AT&T is publicly stating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually TWC (road runner) just started traffic shaping. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18468495<BR><BR>Though the actions of TWC seems have more to do with reducing bandwidth presumably they are looking at the same protocols.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pyster:<BR>please note that att, nsa, mpaa, and riaa are NOT acronym, they are initialisms. An acronym is a initialism that is pronouncable. FEMA, NASA, WIC, MADD, etc are acronyms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not according to hyperdictionary.com hyperdictionary.com.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The telcos have much more technology for packet & protocol analysis than the likes of Youtube or web service company. Along with the partnerships to companies like Cisco, NorTel, etc.. this will be interesting and could work out for AT&T.<BR><BR>For the consumer, it'll be another step back.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Too bad there's so many legimate uses for bit-torrent coming to light. Case in point, the Blizzard Downloader and Linux. Since AT&T is who they are, they'll probably filter legitimate traffic too.<BR><BR>Sad cause bit-torrent is a fantastic way for a company to send massively large content with minimal overhead to themselves.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Happysin:<BR>I am curious how this is going to work for BitTorrent when so many people now use packet encryption by default. <BR><BR>Actually, I'm curious how it would work at all, but that's my first question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe the other shoe will be an attempt to push a bill through congress to make it illegal for non-corporate entities to use encryption.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pyster:<BR>please note that att, nsa, mpaa, and riaa are NOT acronym, they are initialisms. An acronym is a initialism that is pronouncable. FEMA, NASA, WIC, MADD, etc are acronyms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Point taken!<BR>At-tuh, N'suh, M'pah, Reeya
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Frosty Grin
Ars Legatus Legionis
First they came for file-sharers, but I wasn't a file-sharer, so I did nothing... -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The problem is that separation of speech from the speaker often involves loss of rights for the speaker. What would be best, if it were possible, would be a 'net' consisting of individual nodes that reached out on their own. Just like real speech.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"If we instead try and restrict behavior technologically... the only result will be an arms race that nobody wins." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>"Nobody wins" sounds like very, very wishful thinking. It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases (all?), the hackers have won.<BR><BR>-=Russ=-
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
As far as I'm concerned telcos should do little more than offer the plumbing, with little interaction or concern for the content being transmitted. The only exception I can think of this would be network and computer security relatedl, given the ability of those sorts of threats to affect the plumbing itself.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theeric:<br>That's easy. All they have to do is develop a Turing Plus class AI and have it scan the entire content of the Internet and compare it to it's copy of every copyrighted work. Once it flags every clip of every movie, song, composition, novel, article, essay, etc. it can grade them on newsworthiness, the quality of the critical analysis and any other criteria it's masters at the *A organizations. <br><br>Of course you run the risk of triggering a Singularity anytime you put an AI on the Internet. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>SkyNET? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br><br>edit: damn, beaten by a single minute -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by theeric:<br>That's easy. All they have to do is develop a Turing Plus class AI and have it scan the entire content of the Internet and compare it to it's copy of every copyrighted work. Once it flags every clip of every movie, song, composition, novel, article, essay, etc. it can grade them on newsworthiness, the quality of the critical analysis and any other criteria it's masters at the *A organizations. <br><br>Of course you run the risk of triggering a Singularity anytime you put an AI on the Internet. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>SkyNET? -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif --<br><br>edit: damn, beaten by a single minute -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Comcast has a similar practice. They spy on their users, if my DMCA infringement notices are any indication. I'm not sure what triggered the automated process, my repeat offenses or the high bandwidth uses, but AT&T isn't doing anything new, just the same old evil.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Big brother here we come! Freedom of speech over e-mail and sharing files will soon come to an end. <BR><BR>Will the USA become like comunist China and throw people in jail for their thoughts and speech over the internet?<BR><BR>They already have something like Skynet. Ever since the 1950's whenever you said the word president, bomb or a number of other keywords you phone call was automatically recorded. What do you think they have now?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Tempus --)-------
Ars Tribunus Militum
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JeffT2:<BR>Big brother here we come! Freedom of speech over e-mail and sharing files will soon come to an end. <BR><BR>Will the USA become like comunist China and throw people in jail for their thoughts and speech over the internet?<BR><BR>They already have something like Skynet. Ever since the 1950's whenever you said the word president, bomb or a number of other keywords you phone call was automatically recorded. What do you think they have now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>would you like a tinfoil hat to go with that?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I hope the Geeks remember this before they all queue up for their new Apple Phone!<BR><BR>Wouldn't it be great if enough people boycotted the iPhone so that Steve would be forced to leverage whatever influence he has to open up AT&T's network.<BR><BR>Who am I kidding it sounds like the iPhone and AT&T's network are equally "open" to their customers.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
You believe there was the capacity to scan all calls that said the word President in the 1960s?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If they can't tell that an email is trying to sell you viagra, and the email is available in clear text, how are they going to assemble huge sets of data and determine that a movie is there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree. To me, this looks like nothing more than posturing. I know the Execs can be out-of-touch, but they aren't stupid or unskilled. This is a political move to placate somebody somewhere.<BR><BR>We all know it won't work. They can have my packets when they pry them out of my cold dead fingers, and I'll be sure to change the code a few times before that happens.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Geg:<BR>This sounds an awful like like unauthorized wire-tapping to me. I don't pirate, and I don't want AT&T looking at my shit. The fact that are totally going to fuck it up from the get go does not make me feel any better.<BR><BR>While they my be incompetent today odds are they wont be forever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Or they are just tapping it, redirecting to the NSA under the cover of piracy. Meanwhile the government can read your every email and browser click.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"e-mail and web requests should remain private in such a system."<BR><BR>Uh, hate to break it to you, but e-mails are certainly not private. The NSA has been filtering e-mail for years. E-mail's are pretty much postcards at this point.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I really can't fathom why AT&T would even consider this idea. Even if remotely successful, filtering internet traffic that flows across their network sounds like an extremely expensive proposition...and for what return? How do they expect to profit from taking it upon themselves to do this? Where are the shareholders? Why are they not demanding that AT&T not sink money somewhere that can't generate revenue?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fxds:<BR>SBC thought they could lose their customer-hostile image just by buying AT&T and assuming their name. Of course they didn't actually change any of their business practices so all they've really accomplished is to being dragging the AT&T name down into the mud, too. So much for that $16 billion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, SBC was one ISP that refused to give their customers' identities to the RIAA's legal department. I'm a (reluctant) customer of their's, and don't generally appreciate the service I get; but in the past they have not cooperated with other companies to actively punish their customers...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status