Slashdot Log In
AT&T Denies Censorship, Won't Change Contract
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:59 PM
from the trust-us-we're-good-guys dept.
from the trust-us-we're-good-guys dept.
Vox writes "As we discussed here a few days back, AT&T's Terms of Service has very broad language giving them the right to terminate the account of any AT&T Internet service customer who criticizes the company. Ars Technica notes that such broad language is not unusual in ISPs' terms of service, and that AT&T told them they won't be changing the contract. A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions and says that the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs. As the article notes, taking the company on faith after the spying scandal is asking maybe a little too much."
Related Stories
[+]
AT&T Silences Criticism in New Terms of Service 298 comments
marco13185 writes "AT&T's new Terms of Service give AT&T the right to suspend your account and all service "for conduct that AT&T believes"..."(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." After cooperating with the government's violations of privacy and liberties, I guess AT&T wants their fair share. AT&T users may want to think twice about commenting if they value their internet service."
Submission: AT&T denies censorship, but won't change contr by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ok (Score:5, Funny)
Time to play the waiting game.
Re:Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, well okay then, why didn't they say so? Hell, we should give the government the right to censor too, as long as they _say_ they have no intent to do it...I mean, governments and big corporations never lie to the populace, right?
/sarcasm
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/producthelp/aup/thusaup/ [demon.net]
Demon cannot tolerate any behaviour by customers which negatively impacts upon its own equipment or network, or upon the use by other customers of the Internet, or which damages Demon's standing in the wider Internet community.
It's a bit broad, like most consumer contracts - essentially they can stop you being a customer if you piss them off. But as far as I know they use it to get read of spammers, sca
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
b) "the contract is aimed at stopping the exploitation of children, and other tangible wrongs"
Actually, won't (a) actively prevent (b). Statistically, AT&T must employ some people who are child molesters and/or view child pornography. The clause could silence someone who wanted to 'out' one of these employees. Sure it's highly unlikely, but I don't see any other way the two i
Today then tomorrow (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe current AT&T management has no intention of terminating accounts for criticism of the company, but what about the new managers who will be running things tomorrow? Your promises of "we won't do that" have no binding power whatsoever over the other people who will inherit the power of that contract tomorrow. (not to mention that they don't have any legal binding power over you, today).
Sorry, but that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
AT&T, thank you for not disconnecting my service upon reading this post.
Re: (Score:2)
Clause not needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
should actually be stated
clause C (make AT&T look worse)
which is actually not really feasible, so it should be impossible for them to shut you off
open container law (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though we can, we won't bust you or censor you... unless we want to, then we have a contract to point at. PLUS, if Uncle Sugar sends in the FBI to snoop you, we can point to the contract that YOU signed, saying we could. So we're indemnified.
Don't worry, we'll never use that option! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Oh, that's standard contract language. Don't worry about it. We won't exercise it, we just make sure we have the option to."
"Oh, okay, then."
5 years later....
"We've come for Billy."
"What do you mean?"
"We have a contract saying you'd give us your firstborn as an apprentice. You signed it."
"But you said you'd never use that clause!"
"New management. I don't know what you're complaining about. You signed it without duress, and initialed the clause indicating you'd read and understood it."
"Mommy?"
"Sorry, honey, you have to go away with the nice Sith Lord. I'll text you every day, I promise."
Parent
Re:Don't worry, we'll never use that option! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like several rental agreements I've had over the years. When moving in I ask the landlord to make note of a dozen or more minor flaws with the apartment. The landlord either outright refuses (saying, we would never ding you for something that small), or says they'll do it but doesn't, then when I am trying to get my damage deposit back years later and am now dealing with a different person I lose most or all of the deposit because there is no documentation that says these little problems pre-date me.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just in telecom. It's in credit cards too: "We can raise your interest rates whenever we feel like it, even on 'fixed' rates. We normally won't, but what they heck, you might annoy us some day."
Or my apartment. "You have to notify us 60 days in advance for a moveout." "Hey, here's my notice today, 60 days in advance." "Oh,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Le Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason to use broad statements is so that you have wiggle room later on.
Lawyers love vague contract terms... Judges not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember them terrerists... if you're not with us....
Re: (Score:2)
save the children, etc (Score:2)
Actually, to me it sounds like an unenforceable clause of the contract that they put in there to be able to strong arm someone even though it may not stand up in court.
SOP? (Score:2)
AT&T sucks (Score:5, Informative)
The ACLU won the first round of this legal challenge in August 2006, when U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the NSA program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in her ACLU v. NSA decision. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control," Taylor wrote in the decision, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html [aclu.org]
"AT&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.
A Los Angeles Times article dated Dec. 26 quoted an unnamed source as saying the NSA has a "direct hookup" into an AT&T database that stores information about all domestic phone calls, including how long they lasted.
http://news.com.com/AT38T+sued+over+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html [com.com]
"Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"
Company Response
Adelphia Communications Declined comment
AOL Time Warner No [1]
AT&T Declined comment
BellSouth Communications No
Cable & Wireless* No response
Cablevision Systems No
CenturyTel No
Charter Communications No [1]
Cingular Wireless No [2]
Citizens Communications No response
Cogent Communications* No [1]
Comcast No
Cox Communications No
EarthLink No
Global Crossing* Inconclusive
Google Declined comment
Level 3* No response
Microsoft No [3]
NTT Communications* Inconclusive [4]
Qwest Communications No [2]
SAVVIS Communications* No response
Sprint Nextel No [2]
T-Mobile USA No [2]
United Online No response
Verizon Communications Inconclusive [5]
XO Communications* No [1]
Yahoo Declined comment
* = Not a company contacted by Rep. John Conyers.
[1] The answer did not explicitly address NSA but said that compliance happens only if required by law.
[2] Provided by a source with knowledge of what this company is telling Conyers. In the case of Sprint Nextel, the source was familiar with Nextel's operations.
[3] As part of an answer to a closely related question for a different survey.
[4] The response was "NTT Communications respects the privacy rights of our customers and complies fully with law enforcement requests as permitted and required by law."
[5] The response was "Verizon complies with applicable laws and does not comment on law enforcement or national security matters."
http://news.com.com/Some+companies+helped+the+NSA%2C+but+which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html [com.com]
Additional info from the EFF
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php [eff.org]
Conversely... (Score:5, Funny)
NO CARRIER
Re:Conversely... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Online Bill of rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a stab at some of the rights I'd like to see protected:
1. You may not restrict the right to access, download, store, manage, edit, and publish my data on the platform and web site of my choosing. Period.
2. You may not terminate my account for political statements, inappropriate language, statements of sexual nature, religious commentary, or statements critical of your service, with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply
Hmm... that's a good start. Any others to add?
-John Mark
Count me in on this one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
with exceptions for specific laws, eg. hate speech, where they apply
Problem is, one man's freedom of speech is another man's hate speech.
There are alternatives! (Score:3, Interesting)
There are alternatives that aren't evil. For instance, for hosting: my service [thoughtbug.com] (shameless plug) -- unless it's illegal or interferes with other clients, I won't touch it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you only host stuff that's either illegal or interferes with other clients? Great business model you have, no?
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope that helps!
Re: (Score:2)
then nixxing it won't be a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
A company spokesman said it's not a big deal because they have no intent to censor criticism. AT&T claims to respect its subscribers' right to voice their opinions
Then it won't be a problem removing it, now will it? Especially since existing tort law covers libel?
Any time someone says "oh, we don't intend to use that clause, ignore it", the correct answer is "I don't intend to take a verbal assurance you won't exercise a contractually granted right."
Any time someone insists on guaranteeing something off the record or verbally instead of in the contract you are negotiating there is a reason, especially when their statements contradict terms in the contract.
I hope someone steps up and fights this.... (Score:2)
And AT&T calls checkmate (Score:5, Insightful)
Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Blanket surveillance excuse: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Blanket excuse for a telecommunication company/government entity to do anything and everything it wants: "We're uhh... stopping the exploitation of children!"
Why has this method been so effective for so long? When will the madness end?
Sounds like you have something to hide, or else you wouldn't be complaining.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And AT&T calls checkmate (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Somewhat hypocritical... (Score:2)
Actually, it's great (Score:2)
Truuuust me (Score:2)
We claim a mile, but we'll only use an inch... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a wonderful scene in a novel by John D. MacDonald's book Condominium in which a an agent pushes a legal paper at a condominium buyer saying it is "just a formality." A week later, the buyer is in the office trying to get action on various construction problems and glitches. The air conditioner won't work, for example. The agent says "You can handle that yourself; contact the manufacturer." After several serious complaints have been brushed aside, the buyer starts mumbling about withholding payments and legal action, and the agent tells him that he's basically signed all his rights away.
"But you said that was just a formality," says the buyer.
"That's right," says the agent, "it is a formal, binding, legal agreement."
Exploitation of children? (Score:2)
What about Binding Arbitration (Score:3, Interesting)
They usually read something like "you agree never to sue us. Ever. If you're ever unhappy you agree to use binding arbitration (usually with a clause requiring phone, email, or mail settlement and barring in-person) with our chosen arbitration company xyz" ATT actually makes brief mention of small claims court but that's about it.
Now, i know our court systems are horribly abused but it seems that a legitimate use for them "They billed my checking account for 12 months of service when it never worked according to their advertised bla bla bla" can never actually come to fruition.
As for the clause everyone's complaining about: Would you let someone run a website/blog bashing your hosting company ON one of their servers? If you hate ATT enough that you'd publicly bash them, why would you use their servers to do it?
I think this whole topic is a waste of time.
person a "I want to be able to post my website and say whatever i want"
person b "well i know ISP XYZ censors what you post"
person a "Oh, ok. I won't go there then. There's only 14 million other hosting copmanies and plenty of ISP's"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I was thinking of switching back to dialup too. There just isn't that much need for me to have websites display in less than a couple of minutes, and online gaming was kind of overrated.
Of course, my dialup would be going over AT&T's phonelines, so I suppose they could send some guy out with the wirecutters if they don't like what I have to say.
Twisty little passages (Score:2)
Wow, that was easy. I'm all set up to follow in Oolon Coluphid's footsteps.
AT&T *IS* the Goverment. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you call me names... (Score:2, Redundant)
... I would not do business with you either.
Contrary to the popular opinion, discrimination is not illegal, unless it is on the basis of race, religion, health, or age (with some ifs and buts).
Discriminating on the basis of expression of disagreable opinions (other than religious) is perfectly legal. And it better remain so...
Won't somebody please... (Score:2)