What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
321 Comments
- Frostman3D, on 01/17/2008, -16/+512No, AT&T hasn't lost it's mind. Our government has, and WE THE PEOPLE have as well for letting things like this go on. It's government and corporations with all their billions against us. People that make anywhere from $0 to $250,000 a year. This is an intrusion of our liberties yet we still let it go on. It will not only continue to go on if we don't stop it, but it will increase and become more intrusive every year. It's time government heard from "We The People" again.
- jggube, on 01/17/2008, -1/+127I think the issue is: if we allow this, where will they stop? Will they start listening in and recording data from our phone calls? I have an iPhone from AT&T... this concerns me a bit because I don't want them keeping tabs on what I do with the phone service I pay for, as long as I follow thier Terms of Service, I should be able to do what I want without having to think about who's listening in on me.
- PhilMoskowitz, on 01/17/2008, -3/+94If you're using AT&T right now you're supporting this. Vote with your wallets.
- TheInfamousOne, on 01/17/2008, -1/+75terrorist! Only people with something to hide should be worried!!!!!
/sarcasm (incase the over use of ! wasn't apparent) - pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -6/+62ron paul would argue they are within their right as a private business. that's why he's also against net neutrality.
- misterpony, on 01/17/2008, -1/+54I think Tim Wu is a genius in this area, but I don't agree with the premise of this article. I think the idea that AT&T is afraid of copyright laws is over reaching. Trying to make an argument that AT&T won't want to put themselves into a position of being the overlord internet police seems to be full of holes. They'll just get Congress to pass laws that say they are allowed to police but are not responsible for the copyrighted material...they'd argue they are only 'helping' to control illegal activities and it's not their fault they inspect everything but might miss encrypted or other stuff. They just want the authority to start sniffing anything they want and let it build into selective blocking that benefits their bottomline. Which in this case is just refusing to add broadband capacity so they can stop the p2p and won't have to spend money to expand their U-verse and HD packages. They'll still trying to get retroactive immunity for spying on people remember, so why wouldn't they just take the same approach now...AT&T operates under a "you're not doing anything wrong unless you're caught" philosophy: do as much as possible until someone wises up and then ~still~ try to get out of punishment afterwards.
The fact is we shouldn't have to argue that AT&T can't become the internet police just because it's not fiscally responsible or legally the best move. We shouldn't have to worry about any corporation or government inspecting and controlling the internet to suit their needs.
This entire thing is a total smack in the face to the integrity and original intent of the internet and also a blatant disregard of privacy, free speech, and search and seizure. - fac3less, on 01/17/2008, -0/+50Actually, they already do listen in on your call. & they already *DO* monitor what you do over the internet.
Is everyone forgetting about http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006 ... -- they *monitor* everything you're doing online. Not just one person here & there but *everyone*. If you use the internet in the US (or even worldwide to do things that access US based servers) you're probably traversing the AT&T network which is BUGGED.
Seriously, how quickly people forget. - mcgarry83, on 01/17/2008, -0/+46Thats really the point of the comment system...to make comments and share your feelings on a subject.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -2/+48and the government is bought and paid for by such companies as AT&T
- pianomahnn, on 01/17/2008, -9/+53You're an idiot.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+39Soon the internet will be particle board in a laundromat.
- aaronwolfe, on 01/17/2008, -1/+37Just another example of corporations seeing their customers as the enemy...
This is effectively impossible, there are many ways to disguise traffic. Funny thing is they'll attempt this and then pass the expense on to their customers...they're just protecting us from ourselves, right? - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+33AT&T has no business reading my mail or listening in on my conversations on the internet or not. I talk to my children who can not consent to having their conversations record, I write letters to my family attorney and doctor (all confidential and privileged information).
I also conduct business affairs on the internet which are also protected by anti-corporate espionage laws. So if AT&T has been listening in, they have already violated some of this countries most closely held legal principles.
No wonder they want retro-active immunity, it's the mother of all slam-dunk lawsuits. - hnilsen, on 01/17/2008, -4/+35Thank the Gods for uTorrent (bittorrent) encryption and random port!
- sclifford, on 01/17/2008, -1/+31Hmmm, so this would constitute a substantial change to my 2 year iPhone contract...
- reverland, on 01/17/2008, -0/+26This is what happens when a government lets a monopoly get back together. The reason they do these things is because in most cases you're stuck with them as a customer. They didn't dare do this when they were only a long distance carrier.
- astrotrain, on 01/17/2008, -0/+25Whats next... AT&T if they find illegal downloads will they dispatch the RIAA or MPAA S.W.A.T like team to your house. This is why nobody in their right mind would use AT&T for anything especially for their ISP.
And as stated a bazillion times in the past, never, ever, trust a company that has the Deathstar as their logo..
** light just went on **
I wonder if we can get Lucas or the MPAA to go after AT&T for using a 'likeness' of the Deathstar....Hmmmm.... - FredSpeaking, on 01/17/2008, -0/+24WTF, you've been depriving artists' of their creative works without their permission or knowledge!? The rest of us were harmlessly making digital copies for personal use.
- insomniac8400, on 01/17/2008, -1/+25If the spying bill passes at the end of the month, AT&T won't even have to let us know if they decide to spy. They will just secretly ask the government for permission.
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/17/2008, -1/+24please stop calling it stealing. it is at most a copyright violation, not theft.
if you steal a physical CD from best buy, that's stealing because best buy has one less CD to sell. If you violate copyright and lose your incentive to buy the CD, then best buy at most lost a potential sale, but still has their physical cd to sell.
hate to play semantics, but you're misusing words. - Fafnir43, on 01/17/2008, -0/+21a) You tell others to "grow the ***** up", but your post is riddled with obscenities. Just thought I'd point that out.
b) Piracy is not theft. Piracy is copyright infringement. There is a major difference, if only of degree. If I go into an electronics store and steal a high-quality TV, that store has lost maybe $1000 of merchandise (theft). If I go into a store and make a copy of a high-quality TV, then take that (copyright infringement), then what has the store lost? They still have the TV, after all. I suppose you could argue (and many in the RIAA do argue) that the store has lost a sale, but that argument assumes that if not for the TV-copying device I would have bought the TV - clearly an incorrect assumption if I'm low on money or not really in the market for a TV. About the only convincing argument against copyright infringement of this type is that it promotes a culture in which copyright infringement may be seen as acceptable, which may lead to more lost sales in the future.
So we've gone from the loss of an actual physical item to an individually negligible contribution to the possible loss of future sales. Do you see how one is infinitely less severe than the other? They're both wrong, but to say that piracy is morally equivalent to theft is ridiculous.
Declaration of bias: I do not pirate music, but I would consider it less wrong to do so than to pay the RIAA a single penny given their recent actions.
c) Morals of the situation aside, quite frankly I'd be against this if they were planning to filter out child porn rather than just trying to protect a few dinosaurs who haven't realised they're dead yet. No matter what filtering software they use, there are going to be false positives. That means that whether or not you are "dumb-***** enough to share COPYRIGHTED CONTENT on the ***** internet (sic)", there's a chance you'll be sued anyway. Sure, you'll be innocent, but defending will take years and probably cost about as much as the settlement would (because the RIAA drags out these cases intentionally), plus you'll have to deal with the social stigma, and you'll probably lose your job, and overall your whole life will hit a bit of a snag. I don't consider that a good situation. What's more,
d) The key problems in getting something like this set up is not copyright infringement-specific. That means that once AT&T has this in place, they can with minimal effort start filtering out (say) all websites that refer to their competitors in a positive manner. Or all websites that are positive about a particular political candidate. Or even just /log the visits/ to websites about particular political candidates and views, and maybe send those logs on to someone else. I'm not one to cry 1984, but given AT&T's prior complicity in warrantless government wiretaps I would consider that a /very/ scary capability for them to have right now, for any reason.
In conclusion, I'd rather be a bitch than a *****, and I hope Darwin shoots you in the face. Have a nice day. - hs112186, on 01/17/2008, -3/+21dugg for the phrase "corporate seppuku"
- Makaveli604, on 01/17/2008, -0/+17Library = theft ?
- jsmu, on 01/17/2008, -1/+17Did you read the post? Running for office today requires megabucks, in case you were ignorant of this fact. What are YOU doing other than sniping at the airing of legitimate grievances?
- akkibaba, on 01/17/2008, -1/+16"I have nothing to worry about."
I'd add a "...yet" to the end of that sentence. We can't allow companies to invade our privacy like that for any reason. This particular "piracy" reason might not concern you, but it's a foot in the door that will give legitimate status to the concept of a
tiered internet where some websites are given a higher priority over others if they pay more. If that happens, we all lose.
The second point is, if they look at our traffic, where does it stop? Can they block anti ATT speech, for example?
Stop telling people to "grow up" and pay attention to the bigger issues at stake here. - nogami, on 01/17/2008, -1/+16Time to start enabling SSL encryption on ALL communications. And if AT&T starts monitoring traffic, nothing else I can think of will be as quick to drive the entire internet to start encrypting everything, regardless of format.
Maybe they're doing us a favor... Forcing us to secure our data even more... - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+15That would only make it worse you boob! Giving the whole ***** thing to the government sounds like a bad idea.
- flameboy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+14I have never read a more intelligent, yet misguided comment!
"If they (RIAA, MPAA, ISPs, Congress) all act as a team they probably can stop p2p." - This is a completely false statement for the following reasons:
1. the internet is international. If the USA decides to ***** up the internet, well then foreign networks will begin to lead the way and pick up the slack
2. there is no technological means by which to stop the spread of data across a network such as the internet. let them try, it will result in more sophisticated covert techniques of data transfer.
"Maybe, just maybe, the answer is not to download stuff illegally."
Maybe you should take another look at the word "illegally". What makes something illegal? Do i need to find links for all the moronic "illegal" laws we have in this country? Filesharing, like marijuana, isnt going anywhere anytime soon. I dont care how many laws are enacted, people WILL find a way and theres simply nothing anybody can do about it.
"Pirates, so far, have been counting on the common-carrier provision to protect them but that provision only needs a stroke of a pen to go away."
No, pirates know that technology is on their side. They know that no matter what, you cant undo progress. We cant un-invent the wheel. The world is blessed with the amazing ability to endlessly copy, share, and save ALL forms of data and this capacity is growing! If the USA decides to try and hinder this progress, well I believe that will lead to its own destruction.
"we are giving the system all the ammo it needs to turn the privacy wall into swiss cheese"
Nah, BS. Copyright, childporn, communists, blah blah blah. Privacy is ALWAYS the first thing to erode when people seek more power. Dont get tricked into thinking this is all our fault, its not.
Wake up man and support PROGRESS. Honestly, who gives a ***** about copyright anyway? Is it really worth giving up the AMAZING technological advancements that we as a society continue to achieve? As the worlds data begins to flow more freely, its going to be harder for content makers control their content but at the same time... this makes it easier for more content makers to enter the market. Look at all the entertainment YouTube has given us. But the execs said "omg if you dont pay us tons of $$ where will you get your movies, tv shows, and music????"
Well guess what, im not worried about that at all. And neither should you. The only people who should be worried are people in the business of restricting content- because their days are numbered. - seraphisset, on 01/17/2008, -3/+17It's all about the Benjamins.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+14your IP address is still readily available to anyone who wants it, the point of utorrents encryption is to try and prevent broken connections from traffic shaping
- alpha94, on 01/17/2008, -3/+17Welcome, comrade.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+14LoL! "if we allow it" implies that you actually have any power to stop them.
- woohhaa, on 01/17/2008, -1/+13Boy I sure hope they like porn. 99.9% of all internet traffic.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 01/17/2008, -1/+13its more like corporate bukkake
- Chromatik, on 01/17/2008, -0/+12***** the AT&T!!!
- NeoMatrixJR, on 01/17/2008, -0/+12Ok, I didn't read the article or comments yet, but I have a question. Since AT&T's one of the "backbone" network providers...won't that give them access to a LOT of the traffic on the internet...not just AT&T subscribers?
- midhqel, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11You are an idiot. Just because something does not directly concern you does not mean you should not be concerned with the subject. The point is the more freedoms taken away makes it easier for other freedoms to be taken away, a freedom that might very well have a direct connection to you. Either wake up or turn your computer off.
- Vaelkar, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10Actually, what you are describing is different. This isn't the police with the radar guns -- these are common citizens, truck drivers, people on the streets. You know.. that whole "people who have no power to enforce laws" things? Yeah, now they're standing around with radar guns saying "hey I've got one here!"
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9I dumped AT&T two years ago and many of my friends are doing the same. A good friend with a medium sized business was until recently forced to use certain AT&T services- he just found an alternative and dumped their ass. Many people are. Switch your cell phones and force this company to eat up the competitor you switch to if you really want to see how they operate.
http://www.hugequestions.com/ - slasc, on 01/17/2008, -13/+21Plannin' on it. (Texas primaries aren't until March)
- njcarlos, on 01/17/2008, -3/+11Wrong, AT&T lobbyists are the ones promoting such a monopoly. Why do you think Comcast is the ONLY option in my area? Why do you think there is only 1 cable provider in any given area? Government involvement is the problem, not the solution. Claiming that AT&T just buying up businesses is not the problem. By those standards, anyone in the market for competition would sell out rather than compete based on the qualify of goods and services: this can't be true. Why wouldn't USPS buy out UPS? Why wouldn't Fedex buy out UPS? Why wouldn't UPS buy out DHL? By your claims, the highest earning company with the most capital would thwart all competitors through acquisition, and that isn't the case. Businesses and individuals sell out because they don't feel they can compete or they weren't dedicated to their service/good: it's a voluntary business move, not a tyrannical overtaking.
- KraftDinner101, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8At least put quotes around it so people can tell you took it from the article.
- ZxEfR, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9Yeah it's so funny (not really) how every time one of these stories come out people seem to forget the story from ten years ago saying they already are!
- gemmakicn, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7To take your analogy,
Cops can check your speed with a speed gun to see if you are breaking the law.
Cops can follow you if they have reasonable suspicion that you are committing/have committed/preparing to commit a crime.
However this is like forcing you to have a tracking chip in your car, that uploads all your movements and speeds to a company (you don't get to choose the company, its the only one that operates in your area). Now that may be used in law enforcement to arrest you, however that company can use your information for marketing purposes, determine who you meet up with, whether you go to work on time, how efficiently you use your car, whether you go to the bar after work.... and you don't have any right to tell them no.
Now AT&T may use this information solely for the purposes of stopping filesharers, but what is to stop them using for their own purposes? what's to stop them filtering all at&t critical e-mails? what's to stop them filtering anti-republican (or even anti-democrat) information. Already they have shown they cannot be trusted by putting filters on certain internet media (pearl jam for example) so why should we trust them with a power they are clinically unable to resist using for their own benefit? - ryan83189, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7im questioning why they exist, not that they do.
- 11oops, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8And while it may be about copyrighted content now, who's to say that later they won't block/slow other types of traffic. Online gaming, internet radio, work VPN connections, Fox news (ok, that one is fine)... see where I'm going with this? Who are you to decide what the internet is and isn't to be used for at my home? Does anyone really think any corporation should be making those decisions for the public?
- dylangaine, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7how can you support the violation of civil liberties in order to enforce law? probably because you are only seeing this in a linear fashion. realize this, once you give up any amount of your civil liberties, the government will erode it away like rust on iron. Shame to the person who do not appreciate their liberties that they so willingly give it away!!
- Skooma714, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7What can we do about it really? If enough customers pull out the government will just hand them money anyway, especially since they are in bed with them.
- Astronutty, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7I am sorry for that, I believed the lie. I don't like either party now...
- jon3k, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7But a phone call would be, correct? Interesting question, I wonder if an e-mail is held to the same standard of assumed confidentiality.
Has this been tried in court? -
Show 51 - 100 of 329 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is