AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter

[Sporkman]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/att-and-other-isps-may-be-getting-ready-to-filter/index.html


AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter

By Brad Stone

For the past fifteen years, Internet service providers have acted - to use an old cliche - as wide-open information super-highways, letting data flow uninterrupted and unimpeded between users and the Internet.

But ISPs may be about to embrace a new metaphor: traffic cop.

At a small panel discussion about digital piracy here at NBC’s booth on the Consumer Electronics Show floor, representatives from NBC, Microsoft, several digital filtering companies and telecom giant AT&T said the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level.

Such filtering for pirated material already occurs on sites like YouTube and Microsoft’s Soapbox, and on some university networks.

Network-level filtering means your Internet service provider – Comcast, AT&T, EarthLink, or whoever you send that monthly check to – could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone’s copyright.

“What we are already doing to address piracy hasn’t been working. There’s no secret there,” said James Cicconi, senior vice president, external & legal affairs for AT&T.

Mr. Cicconi said that AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the MPAA and RIAA, for the last six months about implementing digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.

“We are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this,” he said. “We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies. But we are having an open discussion with a number of content companies, including NBC Universal, to try to explore various technologies that are out there.”

Internet civil rights organizations oppose network-level filtering, arguing that it amounts to Big Brother monitoring of free speech, and that such filtering could block the use of material that may fall under fair-use legal provisions — uses like parody, which enrich our culture.

Rick Cotton, the general counsel of NBC Universal, who has led the company’s fights against companies like YouTube for the last three years, clearly doesn’t have much tolerance for that line of thinking.

“The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status,” he said. “The question is how we collectively collaborate to address this.”

I asked the panelists how they would respond to objections from their customers over network level filtering – for example, the kind of angry outcry Comcast saw last year, when it was accused of clamping down on BitTorrent traffic on its network.

“Whatever we do has to pass muster with consumers and with policy standards. There is going to be a spotlight on it,” said Mr. Cicconi of AT&T.

After the session, he told me that ISPs like AT&T would have to handle such network filtering delicately, and do more than just stop an upload dead in its tracks, or send a legalistic cease and desist form letter to a customer. “We’ve got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there’s no doubt about it,” he said.

[Sporkman]

Where's the outrage. You guys are pathetic. :p

[stalker145]

Where's the outrage. You guys are pathetic. :p

Sorry, I was blinded by rage and couldn't see my keyboard. ;)

Note to self: learn to touch type.

[Sporkman]

Sorry, I was blinded by rage and couldn't see my keyboard. ;)

Note to self: learn to touch type.

:lol:

[~LoKe]

Even though I think it's wrong, I can't really blame them. Their motivation is logical. However, what they don't seem to understand is that they'll never win. This has been proven with DRM, HD DVD, BluRay, everything. No matter what, eventually we'll figure out a way to do what we want, and they're just wasting money implementing protection.

[loudnlownoma]

Saw something about this yesterday while I was at work. For what it's worth, I do technical support for a local cable ISP. So I will be affected by this big time. The only thing I can think that is a driving factor in this is increased pressure by the movie/music companies for faililng enforcement of the copyright infringements by ISP's in general. Apparently they don't think we as the ISP are doing enough in trying to protect our customers from long court battles and ridiculously sized fines. So they are pressuring ISP's to do more to block this type of content, rather than waiting to hit the violator after the file is downloaded and shared. Sucks, but I can definitely see the reasoning behind it.

[SunnyRabbiera]

we will find ways around nonsense like this, we always do....

one day some one is gonna go psycho over crap like this and it might just be me...

[loudnlownoma]

The Comcast traffic shaping probably didn't help things either. Although it was kinda funny the other day when their announcement of DOCSIS 3.0, and speeds up to 150 Mbps, was only slightly overshadowed a couple hours later by an announcement that they were going to be investigated by the FCC over the whole traffic shaping issue....lol. Blind them with insane speeds and they will never notice we are under federal investigation! lol

And you all are right, once it gets implemented, it will only be a matter of time before a new way comes out to bypass it, I'm sure. Coming up with a "perfect" system that doesn't allow any copyrighted material to be shared would cross way too many boundaries....

[tigerplug]

Ha ha , Take a look at this!

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/01/08/comcast-could-receive-hefty-fcc-fine-for-throttling-bit-torrent/

[FuturePilot]

This stuff like this is getting ridiculous. :evil:

[tigerplug]

Tell me about it.

Is it illegal for your ISP to actually view your internet traffic?
I had an arguement with mine last night and not my bittorrent works full speed! --- Im just concerned they could be looking over my shoulder?

[red_Marvin]

I wonder what/who's pressuring them (mafiaa?), since this for them means more job on their part (costs++;) for less customer satisfaction (income--;).

[~LoKe]

Is it illegal for your ISP to actually view your internet traffic?

No, but it's illegal for them to share that private information. However, there have been court cases and subpoenas to force an ISP to share certain information (they did the same thing to search engines like Google, who respectfully declined).

[FuturePilot]

This kind of stuff is starting to outrage me. Next they'll be saying we can't download linux-image-2.6.22-14-generic_2.6.22-14.47_i386.deb because it might contain pirated content :roll::evil:

[tigerplug]

This kind of stuff is starting to outrage me. Next they'll be saying we can't download linux-image-2.6.22-14-generic_2.6.22-14.47_i386.deb because it might contain pirated content :roll::evil:

You would not believe how Pi**ed off I am over this.

[~LoKe]

This kind of stuff is starting to outrage me. Next they'll be saying we can't download linux-image-2.6.22-14-generic_2.6.22-14.47_i386.deb because it might contain pirated content :roll::evil:

Uh, yeah, because that's almost close to what they're doing here. :rolleyes:

[tigerplug]

No, but it's illegal for them to share that private information. However, there have been court cases and subpoenas to force an ISP to share certain information (they did the same thing to search engines like Google, who respectfully declined).

Just as I thought.
Interesting... now... off to use my swedish VPN connection ;)

[stalker145]

Good luck getting the next version of Ubuntu or another of your favorite distros over BT.

Yipeee

[~LoKe]

Good luck getting the next version of Ubuntu or another of your favorite distros over BT.

Yipeee
Most of the people in this thread haven't read the article and are jumping to conclusions. No surprise. :rolleyes:

[FuturePilot]

Good luck getting the next version of Ubuntu or another of your favorite distros over BT.

Yipeee


Most of the people in this thread haven't read the article and are jumping to conclusions. No surprise. :rolleyes:

They don't care what it is, if they see any type of p2p activity they'll assume it's illegal.

[~LoKe]

They don't care what it is, if they see any type of p2p activity they'll assume it's illegal.

Yet another person who didn't read the article. Ignorance yet again.


[...]AT&T said the time was right to start filtering for copyrighted content at the network level.
Didn't know there was a copyright on all linux images. :rolleyes:

[FuturePilot]

Yet another person who didn't read the article. Ignorance yet again.


Didn't know there was a copyright on all linux images. :rolleyes:

My point is they will be filtering for p2p activity and if they see it they'll assume it's illegal. If they're allowed to do stuff like this who knows what will be next. Maybe something as ridiculous as I mentioned before.

[~LoKe]

My point is they will be filtering for p2p activity and if they see it they'll assume it's illegal. If they're allowed to do stuff like this who knows what will be next. Maybe something as ridiculous as I mentioned before.

Quit while you're ahead. Yet again, you did not read the article. There's mention of the round Comcast had with the FCC for blocking BitTorrent traffic, because they assumed all BT traffic was illegal downloads. FCC tore them apart.

Do you honestly think AT&T is dumb enough to do the same thing on an even wider scale?

Please, for your own sake, READ THE ARTICLE.

[stalker145]

Most of the people in this thread haven't read the article and are jumping to conclusions. No surprise. :rolleyes:

I hope you aren't speaking of me.


Slowing down the network
could soon start sniffing your digital packets, looking for material that infringes on someone’s copyright.

Slowing down the network
AT&T has been talking to technology companies, and members of the MPAA and RIAA, for the last six months about implementing digital fingerprinting techniques on the network level.
From the article
Internet civil rights organizations oppose network-level filtering, arguing that it amounts to Big Brother monitoring of free speech, and that such filtering could block the use of material that may fall under fair-use legal provisions — uses like parody, which enrich our culture.
They don't even know what to do.
After the session, he told me that ISPs like AT&T would have to handle such network filtering delicately, and do more than just stop an upload dead in its tracks, or send a legalistic cease and desist form letter to a customer. “We’ve got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there’s no doubt about it,” he said.

So, put down your rock, please.

[maybeway36]

If a DMCA notice is mailed out, they have to say what copyright it is they're violating, so they have to check what's being downloaded, right?

[Methuselah]

I'm uneasy with this. It seems we are entering an age technology being increasingly used to restrict the freedom of people in general. IMO, it's a worrying trend.

Sure, they may claim to be defending legal right but what is legal is not always moral. Many forms of slavery, for example, have been legal over the course of history.

[tigerplug]

Since when did we need anything else anyway? - Ubuntu & freedom of software should be enough.

However music should be the same... but I don't see that happening anytime soon

[~LoKe]

Why should we be able to download what we want without the risk of repercussion? IMO, I'm all for the RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/whoever doing what they can to prevent piracy, as long as they don't do it in a way that affects legit Internet users. According to this article, they have no intention of blocking all P2P access, but rather monitoring it to check for illegal activity. I'm all for this. They want to monitor the stuff you download using their service. Have a problem with it? Switch ISP's.

Personally, I download plenty of music and movies. But I'm not so ignorant to go around pretending what I do is alright, or that it's even slightly acceptable. I steal, but I admit it. And still, I support them.

[tigerplug]

Why should we be able to download what we want without the risk of repercussion? IMO, I'm all for the RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/whoever doing what they can to prevent piracy, as long as they don't do it in a way that affects legit Internet users. According to this article, they have no intention of blocking all P2P access, but rather monitoring it to check for illegal activity. I'm all for this. They want to monitor the stuff you download using their service. Have a problem with it? Switch ISP's.

Personally, I download plenty of music and movies. But I'm not so ignorant to go around pretending what I do is alright, or that it's even slightly acceptable. I steal, but I admit it. And still, I support them.



Likewise - Agreed!

[GavinZac]

perhaps one day America will go to war on "piracy" instead of "terror" and suddenly lots of people will have the time to try out a different/actual free operating system ;)

[kamaboko]

Why should we be able to download what we want without the risk of repercussion? IMO, I'm all for the RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/whoever doing what they can to prevent piracy, as long as they don't do it in a way that affects legit Internet users. According to this article, they have no intention of blocking all P2P access, but rather monitoring it to check for illegal activity. I'm all for this. They want to monitor the stuff you download using their service. Have a problem with it? Switch ISP's.

Personally, I download plenty of music and movies. But I'm not so ignorant to go around pretending what I do is alright, or that it's even slightly acceptable. I steal, but I admit it. And still, I support them.

Long live The Pirate Bay

[Methuselah]

I don't download movies and music but I think this is objectionable.
Everything is about THEIR rights what about @#@#ing user/consumer rights.
They are not a charity, we're PAYING for services and have a right to protest being snooped on.

It seems as if THEY who have the money (because of us buying their products) to lobby poiliticians for the
enactment of new laws in their favour are experiencing quite an enlargement of their legal rights at OUR expense.
Indeed, we're building our own prison.

[~LoKe]

I don't download movies and music but I think this is objectionable.
Everything is aobut THEIR rights what about @#@#ing user/consumer rights.
They are not a charity, we're PAYING for services have a right to protest being snooped on.

Get off your rant. You're paying for a service which has legal obligations just like you. You can't "pay" a company to let you murder someone, so why should you be able to pay someone to let you steal? They're enforcing laws because they're being asked to.

If you have a complaint, take it up with the RIAA/MPAA, not AT&T.

Also, it's their service, and they'll do what they want with it, it's your choice if you want to give them your money.

[GavinZac]

Get off your rant. You're paying for a service which has legal obligations just like you. You can't "pay" a company to let you murder someone, so why should you be able to pay someone to let you steal? They're enforcing laws because they're being asked to.

If you have a complaint, take it up with the RIAA/MPAA, not AT&T.

Also, it's their service, and they'll do what they want with it, it's your choice if you want to give them your money.

What about those of us not afflicted with such restrictions? What effect will it have, for example, on international traffic?

[~LoKe]

What about those of us not afflicted with such restrictions? What effect will it have, for example, on international traffic?

Potentially, less outgoing traffic. If there's no one on your end monitoring your downloads, then you're in the clear. I'm not sure how far the legal hand stretches, but I don't believe an ISP can track, and have prosecuted, someone who's on the other end, not using their service.

[Craftycorner]

AT&T & other ISP's are considering filtering torrents and other P2P traffic such as eMule & aMule. Supposedly this is just for copyrighted work. As we know, a great deal of legal material can get caught in this panic drift net of paranoia. (I download Linux Distros by the pile.) Some just block Torrents all together. :confused::(:mad:

(I didn't know where to put this, but this is vital for the Linux community that uses Torrents for distribution.)


Does encryption prevent this filtering? I would like to know how to zip-archive a file to get past a 'sniffer' if required because some are so generalized that they block all .avi .gif and such.

[~LoKe]

You're preparing for something that might not even happen.

Anyways, UF's Code of Conduct states that they won't assist anyone in violating any TOS, and trying to bypass their "filter" would be against the UF rules.

[wolfen69]

yes, encryption is designed to mask the fact that it is a bittorrent file.

[Methuselah]

Get off your rant. You're paying for a service which has legal obligations just like you. You can't "pay" a company to let you murder someone, so why should you be able to pay someone to let you steal? They're enforcing laws because they're being asked to.

If you have a complaint, take it up with the RIAA/MPAA, not AT&T.

Also, it's their service, and they'll do what they want with it, it's your choice if you want to give them your money.


Cut out your condesending tone! :mad:
I'm neither impressed nor intimidated.

AT&T has business with ME.
That they take it on their heads to be police for the RIAA even if it involves snooping on innocent customers is beyond me. I don't give a rodent's deriere about RIAA and MPAA.
I don't listen to generic pop sounds or watch the IQ diminishing drivel that comes out of hollywood.

Besides this whole notion of not using services taht make these choices can be very naiive at best, nonsensical at worst. When things like this proliferate becuase of the nonchalance of people like you there mightn't be much choice for otehr people.

It's like having a situation where there is nothing available but Genetically Modified food and telling people who would rather avoid it that they have the CHOICE to not buy it and starve.

[~LoKe]

The simple fact is that AT&T is a business and they have legal obligations just like everyone else. They're will within their rights to monitor the traffic on their own service, much like an employer has the right to monitor the traffic of their employees.

[Methuselah]

Well, you accept far ranging right of corporations.

I, on the other hand, understand that right are determined by laws which are neither immutable nor static.
Laws have been created which EXPAND the rights of others or RESTRICT those of a group.
New laws can also GRANT right where there previously were none.

There are laws that prevent the government from casually spying on individuals yet corporations have more power and less responsibility?

I am just not as accepting as you are of these developments.
It's certainly your right to be totally content with it but please don't tell me, in a holier-than-thou tone to boot, that I should be.

[Sporkman]

Yet another person who didn't read the article. Ignorance yet again.


Didn't know there was a copyright on all linux images. :rolleyes:

It doesn't actually have to be copywrited or pirated - the ISP just needs a reasonable suspiicion, or just enough of a probable cause (bogus or not) to avoid lawsuits.

...say, for example, a letter from the MS legal dept claiming Linux is violating their patents.

[loudnlownoma]

If a DMCA notice is mailed out, they have to say what copyright it is they're violating, so they have to check what's being downloaded, right?

In all instances I have been a part of so far, the copyright notices come in from a user who is uploading the data. Someone (usually a paid employee, etc. from the copyright holder) was able to download the copyrighted material and view at least a portion of it, to prove that the copyrighted material is being shared illegally. At that point, the copyright holder(the movie studio, music studio, whatever) notifies the ISP that they have proof of a user on their network(via IP address in most cases) using the network for illegal traffic(shairing of copyrighted materials) which, in most cases, is against your ISP's Accesptable Use Policy or User Agreements anyway. Instead of your ISP just handing over the information for the customer assigned that IP address at the time, the ISP takes over and advises that they will handle the issue(so as not to provide your private information and let you go to courst or pay the fine and deal with it). That is when you as the subscriber are notified of sharing the material and to stop...

So, in most cases, the major issue now is with uploading or sharing the copyrighted material, from the ISP's standpoint. This type of monitoring will also allow them to help in stopping the downloading of the copyrighted material as well, thus hopefully slowing down the piracy as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't, because I know I have downloaded my fair share of music and movies, etc. on my own time as well. But I can definitely see where they are coming from with this type of move. And it keeps the ISP's from being in and out of court with RIAA/MPAA/whoever for either not sharing the information or not handling it a better way than is currently done. The less they have to do that, the less money they are spending, and this is just one of the factors that goes into figuring out your cost for service.

It is one of those debates that can probably be held up either way as to whether it's right or wrong to do. But the bottom line is it is the ISP's network, and maybe they are starting to get tired of going to bat for customer's using their service to perform not only illegal acts, but in many cases, acts which are completely against their policies you agreed to when signing up for their service. On top of that, you also agreed that it is their network, and as long as you are a subscriber, you agree that they can run and manage it just about any way they wish. Your "choice" in that is that you can stop using them as a provider if you do not agree with the way they manage their own network.

[fudoki]

Saw something about this yesterday while I was at work. For what it's worth, I do technical support for a local cable ISP. So I will be affected by this big time. The only thing I can think that is a driving factor in this is increased pressure by the movie/music companies for faililng enforcement of the copyright infringements by ISP's in general. Apparently they don't think we as the ISP are doing enough in trying to protect our customers from long court battles and ridiculously sized fines. So they are pressuring ISP's to do more to block this type of content, rather than waiting to hit the violator after the file is downloaded and shared. Sucks, but I can definitely see the reasoning behind it.

The real problem is the overly high prices for music and movies. Simply dropping prices 20-30% would eliminate almost all piracy. "Filtering" content is patently illegal, and is wiretapping. A search warrant is needed.

Now you know the REAL reason Bush & Co. are trying to get "blanket immunity" for carriers. They talk about the past, but the immunity they seek goes into the future, forever. This is why everyone that cares, even a little, about privacy, freedom, and not being charged by the keystroke needs to get active and raise hell to make sure immunity is never granted and filtering is not implemented.

To filter, every communication will be scanned, unaccountably and secretly, by strangers. In the name of "terrorism" ANY encrypted communication is automatically suspect. This is another fear tactic to make people afraid; but no amount of fear will make lousy, unoriginal, movies good or mediocre music sound good.

Ask yourself, why would NBC or AT&T care about the RIAA's problems? They plan to charge you extra for everything you click on, and filtering will make this kind of digital tyranny possible....

[~LoKe]

The real problem is the overly high prices for music and movies. Simply dropping prices 20-30% would eliminate almost all piracy.

I disagree entirely. Granted, I'd prefer cheaper music and movie, but to be honest, I'm way too lazy/cheap to actually go out and buy something. A new DVD would have to cost around $10 for me to download it, and music I just wouldn't buy. The simple reason for this is that I watch all my movies and listen to all my music via my PC (hooked up to a stereo and projector). It would be extra effort for me to go out and buy it, bring it back and then rip it (which is illegal?).

[loudnlownoma]

The real problem is the overly high prices for music and movies. Simply dropping prices 20-30% would eliminate almost all piracy.

This is sort of in a catch-22 argument though. Granted inflation will make some of the rise in cost, but a driving factor as to why piracy is so rampant is because people complain about the cost of things. To combat this, they turn around and steal it(no matter what means, if you aren't paying for copyrighted material, you are stealing it), which drives down the amount of the product sold. To recuperate that loss in funds, the companies then have to raise prices, causing the people that are honestly buying the product to have to pay more for it, while driving someone who stole it to even more piracy, because of the rising costs. So prices get dropped a little and a few more people buy it, but it's gotten so easy to steal these days, how many are going to stop and go pay for something they can easily get for free? Thus the prices drop, a few people save money, the profit is still way too low, and prices go back up.

Not to mention, I have a hard time believing that the majority of Internet piracy is based solely on the cost of products. I certainly agree it is a factor, and is a common one. But there are a large number of other reasons people will steal music or movies, other than simply cost. In some cases, like above, convenience is a big factor. At the same time, and the reason I downloaded most of the music I did, is due to the fact that I don't like paying 18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it. Or paying that much for a band I haven't heard before, just to see if I like it. Sure, cost plays a part, but even for 5 bucks I wouldn't want to buy a CD with 15-20 songs to find out I only like one or two. There is also the argument that they are fighting corporations, or "the man", etc. And probably a whole other list of reasons why people would download these things, outside of cost or cost alone. So it's hard to believe that dropping prices here and there would have as great an effect as everyone would like to believe. For example, I have found sites where I can buy MP3's for anywhere from a few cents up to a dollar or more, and I still have not once paid to download a song.



Ask yourself, why would NBC or AT&T care about the RIAA's problems? They plan to charge you extra for everything you click on, and filtering will make this kind of digital tyranny possible....

They would certainly care about a blanket policy for filtering this type of traffic. If you are able to find ways online to download movies and music for free, without paying for them, what will stop you from downloading your favorite TV show episodes as well? So when NBC decides to start charging to view episodes online, or to download them to save, what would stop you from sharing it, allowing others to download it, thus taking away from their profits. I'm not all for big corporations or Big Brother and that sort of thing myself, but at the same time, that doesn't make stealing from them to an extreme the right way to handle it. The best way would be to not buy the product. If enough people refuse to pay for and complain about the higher prices for music, movies, etc. - the companies will listen, especially when it start hitting their pockets, which is a driving factor for any business. But turning to piracy so that you don't miss out on what you want for cheaper isn't going to help, because as I said above, they will not have the room to drop prices when having to make up for the loss in sales due to piracy.

AT&T on the other hand, as with any other ISP, certainly cares about the RIAA/MPAA/etc. Like I said in a previous post, court cases are expensive. If your ISP constantly has to be in and out of court, or have a team of lawyers dedicated to keeping these agencies happy while you try to handle the situation, those costs add up quick. Eventually, they will trickle down and affect all of the customers on their network, through price increases. So now, you have an ISP with hundreds of thousands or millions of customers, who are seeing and complaining about rising costs and higher monthly bills, in part because of a part of their user base who decides they shouldn't have to pay for copyrighted material. Not to say this is the only reason prices go up(as that would be way too ignorant), but it is certainly one of many factors.

[bash]

Lovely. Probably means that we will have the same thing over here soon as well. Because the European Union is currently on a trip to copy every stupid law (and only the stupid ones) that the US passes.

[cdenley]

I would like to know how to zip-archive a file

Right click file, create archive.

[bufsabre666]

Lovely. Probably means that we will have the same thing over here soon as well. Because the European Union is currently on a trip to copy every stupid law (and only the stupid ones) that the US passes.

thats not saying much, over the years all the little addons to the bills get nuts, eventually even the good laws passed are stupid

[Craftycorner]

I would like to know how to zip-archive a file
Right click file, create archive.

Thanks!:)

[Methuselah]

Well, RIAA/MPAA has tried to sue users, P2P software makers and ISPs. I think they're only left to sue the electrical laws of physics for making it possible to store charge in ways they don't like.

I'm a bit sympathetic to their concerns but not too much. Maybe if they stopped vieweing themselves and content gods but as an industry providing a non-essential product they'd adapt to how consumers want to watch moves or listen music.

Instead they insist on dictating unfavourable terms and, having little choice, people either do without RIAA/MPAA controlled content or modify/copy it to suit their purpose regardless of what restrictions RIAA/MPAA try to impose.

I think it's an expensive and losing battle. Even though an ISP filtering scheme may indicate a good faith attempt on the ISPs part, once things enter the digital world there is ALWAYS a technological workaround. It might not be a lot cheaper to continually update their filtering scheme to handle cloaked files than figthing intermittent RIAA/MPAA lawsuits.

This particular part of the discussion is of theoretical interest to me since DVD movies and pop music aren't my thing. I wil lbe affected though. My prvacy will be diminished and there are bound to be glitches that trigger filters on harmless data especially if they try to put out the rash of inevitable workarounds.

[Ocxic]

filtering in this way, is that same as wiretapping your phone.
I don't like the idea of anyone scanning my network traffic and data.
besides p2p users are moving toward encryption to prevent this type of thing, so really there not solving any problems, since they'll never be able to tell whats in the encrypted traffic.

My ISP may monitor bandwidth usage, packet travel, and speed of the data, but as soon as they look at the actual data being transmitted they have committed a crime, and Illegally taped my line.

[gletob]

i think they deserve to pay every penny of 1.7 trillion

[~LoKe]

i think they deserve to pay every penny of 1.7 trillion

No they don't....I don't think you understand how much 1.7 trillion is.

[bufsabre666]

yeah 195k per subscriber is kind of insane

i believe the fine is proper in this case but not a fine of that substance

[stchman]

AT&T & other ISP's are considering filtering torrents and other P2P traffic such as eMule & aMule. Supposedly this is just for copyrighted work. As we know, a great deal of legal material can get caught in this panic drift net of paranoia. (I download Linux Distros by the pile.) Some just block Torrents all together. :confused::(:mad:

(I didn't know where to put this, but this is vital for the Linux community that uses Torrents for distribution.)


Does encryption prevent this filtering? I would like to know how to zip-archive a file to get past a 'sniffer' if required because some are so generalized that they block all .avi .gif and such.

Blame folks that download mass amounts of copyrighted music, movies, and software using torrents. I stay away from torrents and just get the stuff from the website.

[OffHand]

The simple fact is that AT&T is a business and they have legal obligations just like everyone else. They do this by choice, it's not a court order. They are being asked to do this by private organizations.

[Linuxratty]

You would not believe how Pi**ed off I am over this.

Yeah i would...I feel the same way.

[Mateo]

I don't believe it. AT&T has been a fairly pro-consumer ISP compared to junkers like Comcast. How can AT&T say they will help curtail piracy out of one side of their mouths and then help their customers participate in piracy by providing every binary newsgroup, which is about 99% piracy, you can think of? It doesn't make sense.

[Sef]

Will merge this thread with another one in Community Cafe.

[Ovinomacner85]

What I am curios about is how this relates to the idea of wiretapping a line. For the ISP to be able to check for copyright infringement they will need to assemble the whole file or maybe even part of it. This is the data communicated in your "conversation" not where it came from and where it is bound. Historically I have known phone companies to release phone records of who you might be communicating with but not, to my knowledge at least, of what is said. What they are proposing is that they read every bit of data sent through them and that amounts to "wiretapping"

Also I am would like to know how they would check for copyrighted material. Would this entail resurrecting the entire file bing sent and checking it against a database. If so I believe that this would greatly reduce the speed of all transfers because of the additional overhead.

[loudnlownoma]

What I am curios about is how this relates to the idea of wiretapping a line.

I don't see how this would be any different than a number of scenarios that are in place as it is, that people completely agree with or support.

1. At work, in most office environments, you have an IT department. They have the ability to monitor your connection, and people can be reprimanded or lose their jobs if you are found to be doing any number of things - looking up predetermined "suspicious" sites, etc., using the computer/connection/network for ways that you aren't supposed to(which is usually determined in an agreement with your company, that you would sign or agree to when starting employment or before using their systems)

2. If you have a home network that you have setup, this would be no different than browsing logs of the connection from the other computers in your home, whether from your parents, siblings, friends, whatever.

3. What about any kind of monitoring software available currently on the market - such as NetNanny, etc.? Granted, these are used in most cases to help parents ensure their children are unable to access sites or whatever that they deem unacceptable. However, it is still the same issue, the parents determine which sites the children can or can't access, enter them into the software, and in most cases have the ability to see where the user has browsed to, which sites were attempted and failed, and so on. I understand the whole good parenting idea, but to be honest, the parents should be in the room with the child when they are online if they are that concerned about it. Which is why monitoring in this way is no different than what is proposed in the article, and people flock to and praise this software like crazy.

Like I said before, you agree when signing up for service with an ISP to use their network, and allow them to manage it in most any way they wish. I don't see why this would be any more illegal than some of the things I listed above, which is really just a start, I'm sure I can come up with a number of examples with the same idea. By using their network, this is something you allow them to do. If you don't like it, don't use their services. Either enough people will leave and they will change this, or other ISP's will see it working and start doing the same. At least they are being upfront about it, and letting you know ahead of time that this may be happening, unlike some like Comcast who just filtered it without telling anyone, then outright denies it. If they start doing this filtering, you know ahead of time, and can find another ISP or not sign up with their service. That's really all there is to it.

[Sunflower1970]

I'm very uncomfortable with this idea ISP's filtering. I understand they want to stop piracy, but this isn't the way to do it. I don't know what the answer is, but this definately isn't it.

I agree that this is very Big Brother-ish. Once BT, or e/amule Limewire, etc are 'taken care of' what's to stop the ISP's to begin to look at what someone posts on a forum, or a blog, check out what they're looking at online--all without a warrant? And block certain sites, block blogs...I just don't like where this is all going...

[insane_alien]

wouldn't encryption completely side step this. and if you are using an encrypted connection for p2p you might as well throw in a compression algorithm as well.

ladies and gentlemen this could lead to FASTER p2p.

[CarpKing]

I don't see how this would be any different than a number of scenarios that are in place as it is, that people completely agree with or support.

These all seem to operate on the premise of monitoring where your connections go to, not what data is passed over these connections. That's also the difference between keeping records of the phone numbers you've called (and those that have called you) and listening to recordings of your conversations. I'm not an expert in such things, but I can't see how they could filter out copyrighted content without monitoring the data, which would also include everything you type in emails, IMs, forums, etc. I think that's what nonpirates don't like about this plan. Of course there are always methods of encryption, but an encrypted file that no one looks at is safer than an encrypted file that gets examined.


Like I said before, you agree when signing up for service with an ISP to use their network, and allow them to manage it in most any way they wish. I don't see why this would be any more illegal than some of the things I listed above, which is really just a start, I'm sure I can come up with a number of examples with the same idea. By using their network, this is something you allow them to do. If you don't like it, don't use their services. Either enough people will leave and they will change this, or other ISP's will see it working and start doing the same. At least they are being upfront about it, and letting you know ahead of time that this may be happening, unlike some like Comcast who just filtered it without telling anyone, then outright denies it. If they start doing this filtering, you know ahead of time, and can find another ISP or not sign up with their service. That's really all there is to it.

The choice of an ISP is rarely a free market. In most areas there are only a few (or one), and they tend to all be the same few. There are also few if any new ISPs that start up, with most existing ones around long before the Internet was big. With the pressure by the RIAA and MPAA, it is doubtful that an ISP without such filtering could be found.

[loudnlownoma]

These all seem to operate on the premise of monitoring where your connections go to, not what data is passed over these connections. That's also the difference between keeping records of the phone numbers you've called (and those that have called you) and listening to recordings of your conversations. I'm not an expert in such things, but I can't see how they could filter out copyrighted content without monitoring the data, which would also include everything you type in emails, IMs, forums, etc. I think that's what nonpirates don't like about this plan. Of course there are always methods of encryption, but an encrypted file that no one looks at is safer than an encrypted file that gets examined.

Yes, but there is nothing to stop you from examining the data being passed in these scenarios, much like examining the traffic for copyright material. Logging the sites you visit with the intent to verify them as work-related or non-suspicious, etc. is still monitoring the data. It's the same principle, you are just looking for different results.




The choice of an ISP is rarely a free market. In most areas there are only a few (or one), and they tend to all be the same few. There are also few if any new ISPs that start up, with most existing ones around long before the Internet was big. With the pressure by the RIAA and MPAA, it is doubtful that an ISP without such filtering could be found.

It is true that some markets may not have a plethora of choices, but you will have a choice. While there may only be one cable or DSL provider, there are almost always a number of dial-up options, and satellite-provided services as well. Just because you don't like the practices of the fastest connection in your area doesn't mean there are no other choices. That is the same as the argument that cable companies have a monopoly because the satellite TV services in your area are less than desirable. It's not their fault that they provide a better service than the competition, that is the nature of competition. Not saying this is the best alternative, but a choice between a fast ISP that monitors the connection in this way and a slower connection that does not would also bring up some interesting debates. But in the end, you will always have another choice one way or the other. Unless all ISP's decide to go this route, and then your only choice would be to deal with it or not have an ISP. Until a way around it is found, which is bound to happen over time anyway.

At this time, AT&T are the only ISP I've seen articles on saying that they are strongly looking into this, so it's hard to say whether others will join the practice or jump ship and keep things as they are.

[gletob]

No they don't....I don't think you understand how much 1.7 trillion is.

I very well understand the value. I understand its enough to send Comcasts stock spiraling down along with their entire company

[bufsabre666]

I very well understand the value. I understand its enough to send Comcasts stock spiraling down along with their entire company

so youre looking to drive up costs of services?

comcast is the nations largest provider, if the other networks have to assimilate all the new users it'll stress the lines and drive up costs

[CarpKing]

Yes, but there is nothing to stop you from examining the data being passed in these scenarios, much like examining the traffic for copyright material. Logging the sites you visit with the intent to verify them as work-related or non-suspicious, etc. is still monitoring the data. It's the same principle, you are just looking for different results.

There's still a fundemental difference. One is like knowing that two people have had a converstation, while the other is like having a written transcript of that conversation.

[GSF1200S]

Within this life, the average person faces unsurpassable odds. All corporations constantly analyze ways to manipulate our minds and influence our purchasing decisions. Governments force the young off to watch their buddies die horrid deaths on battlefields created entirely for greedy reasons, or as a result of faith conflicts.

Throughout history, "leaders" have sought to control everything, in an effort to have things the way they desire. They use "us" as poker chips in a never ending quest for a bigger pot in all walks of life.

How does all this relate? Its just another crusade they wage in the name of "just," even though our "just" is never considered (young men and women dieing in war). We struggle to pay our bills and feed our children, while they pace their mansion looking for sly ways to 'get more.'

This action is much in the same breath of war, gun control, and 'law.' Regaurdless of right or wrong, we all know what camp wages this war- the group who has alot, and seeks to take even more from the group with little or nothing.

Has it ever occurred to you that some people are so strapped for cash that they cant AFFORD music? What are they to do? "Not listen to it unless they can afford it," you say. Well great, lets deprive our fellow race emotional and sentimental assets in the name of greed. Go mankind...

Trusted Computing (in my sig) is just another method they will utilize to get more, and dont be surprised, as a result of your own ignorance to their misdeeds (while they put the moral ball only in your cort), when new technologies are designed to further inhibit and destroy a souls right to breathe.

[TeaSwigger]

This topic reminded me of an article I once read on another issue. I'll adapt it to suit what I take as the concerns at the core of this subject...

Dear Mr. Cicconi of AT&T;

I am a loyal customer of AT&T. We are engaged in business together. I am your friend and partner. AT&T exists to profit by offering communication services to me. I am your friend and partner because I chose to rely on the services I pay you for in order to communicate online. Your position likewise serves me, and I am glad to generously compensate you. Your money is my money.

Certain corporations and organizations out there are not your friends, not your customers, not even your lunch buddies nor CES booth partners. I am your business. They are not. My business is not theirs and your business is not theirs. They do not have a right to occupy your time or in any sense supercede our business relationship nor consume our funds in pursuit of any interests of theirs.

It surely wouldn't enter your mind to permit other parties to impose on my rights or any aspect of our business, and I am likewise obliged to support your rights. You don't permit anyone to listen to my telephone conversations short of something as serious as national security concerns. So you wouldn't entertain, say, entertainment interests listening to our telephone traffic if they suspect a record might be playing on my end of the line. Naturally AT&T applies similar integrity to our internet business, does it not? This involves personal liberty, which as you know is essential to American life and therefore business. Should other interests impose themselves on us, remind them of our rights as neccessary.

If something is in any way unclear about our relationship, please contact me. Good day to you and, since I leave it as your business, feel free to enjoy my money given you to live your life as your own. Thank you.

Signed,
An American.

(I don't know how a "p2p" etc works, but I just had to get that off my chest... Mr. Cicconi deserves his privacy too and I'd allow him his rights no matter what. If he wants things that way, he should be doing the same for AT&T's customers...)

[dasunst3r]

As long as they don't prevent me from seeding Ubuntu and other open-source software and other things that I know are free for the taking/sharing, I'll be happy.