Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

AT&T Rewrites Privacy Policy

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Jun 21, 2006 02:21 PM
from the wow-just-wow dept.
VikingThunder writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that AT&T has revamped its privacy policy, in an effort to head off future consumer lawsuits, with changes taking effect this Friday. AT&T is introducing a new policy that gives it more 'latitude' when it comes to sharing your browsing history with government agencies. Notable changes include notification that AT&T will track viewing habits of customers of its new video services Homezone and U-Verse, which is forbidden for cable and satellite companies, as well as explicitly stating that the customer's data belongs to the company: 'While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later? 1272 comments
gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by evileyetmc (977519) * on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:22PM (#15577449)
    Well, I knew it wasn't going to be long before companies decided to openly admit that playing politics was more important than treating their customers right. Agreed that they had been playing politics in the past *cough* Bush's domestic wiretapping *cough*, but only now are they confirming that and trying to save their behinds from lawsuits like the kind the EFF has filed for unwarranted wiretaps.
    This is exactly the treachery that leads to companies going under...You f*ck the consumer, you get f*cked right back.

    I say call up your local congressman/woman and tell them that you want the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 to include provisions for all methods of distributing content, including IPTV. Also explain to them that your privacy is important to you and that you want them to support as many privacy bills as they can.

    Of course, if that doesn't work, just ditch AT&T. I know there is enough competition out there to cripple them. Alas, you might end up paying a bit more, but think of it as the price you pay for privacy, and consumer-friendliness.
    • by bleh-of-the-huns (17740) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:27PM (#15577483)
      Ditching ATT is not so easy, they have a very large infrastructure and massive backbone. There is really no way to avoid using their services, either directly or indirectly. I hate to say this, but the only way to stop this is through gov intervention (I wont say regulation because I have regulation), but there is little way for the avg consumer to impact ATT's pocket book, now if companies (end user ISPs and such) toss ATT, that would definately hurt them.
    • Of course, if that doesn't work, just ditch AT&T.
      I currently do not use AT&T. However...

      Anytime anybody calls me using AT&T, my phone number appears in those records. And since I am not an AT&T customer, I have not agreed to their privacy policy. Is there any legal remedy for this?
      • by hackstraw (262471) * on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:24PM (#15577965) Homepage
        Anytime anybody calls me using AT&T, my phone number appears in those records. And since I am not an AT&T customer, I have not agreed to their privacy policy. Is there any legal remedy for this?

        All "privacy policies" are bullshit. They all say at the end of them something in legalese like: "We reserve the right to change our mind at any time".

        Personally, I believe that _WE_ as individuals should create our own privacy policy and make businesses/corps sign it.

        The problem is that no business or corporation or whatever would sign our privacy policy. The rights of individuals have been officially lost as far as I can tell.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:56PM (#15577738) Homepage
      First remembet that it is not AT&T but SBC wearing a AT&T suit they bought.

      This is typical SBC tactics they have been pulling over the years.... They just thought that by changing their name nobody would notice.

      remember when you hear AT&T you are not hearing the AT&T from the past but SBC trying to hide from their reputation.

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:11PM (#15577860) Homepage
      This is exactly the treachery that leads to companies going under...You f*ck the consumer, you get f*cked right back.

      Well, it's a nice theory. In practice, it doesn't mean a damned thing. Cranky consumers can't do anything to a company like AT&T, not really.

      If you explicitly refuse this new privacy policy, do you really believe that will cause them to purge your records? No, they're gonna retain what they have already even if it violates their previous policy.

      What if you can't change? Live in a place where there is exactly one provider of broadband? Think you'll give up your high-speed just to try and punish AT&T? (And if you do, they're gonna keep what they have.)

      Now that they've said this, and now that they're gonna track everything, your assent to their privacy policy will become irrelevant.

      Since they operate much of the backbone, what is to stop them from passing on information about people with whom they don't actually have a current/past business relationship? Nothing, they'll still be passing on their routing data which covers people who could not possibly have consented to the privacy policy. International data gets routed through AT&Ts trunks.

      Hell, I live in a whole different country (Canada), and my cell-phone company (Rogers) is associated with AT&T. Which probably means that some if not all of my own damned information is probably going to flow south of the border. Which fscking Congressman am I going to fskcing contact to complain about this? Oh, wait, that would be absolutely fsking noone, that's who.

      Do you think the government is going to legislate/intervene/say anything? They want this kind of things more than ever. If a company makes you sign a contract that says "we can do anything we want", the current administration has only to gain from this. They're more than happy to extend the territoriatility of their laws with little regard -- despite that if any other country tried to extend their laws in the same way, the US would be screaming bloody murder.

      AT&T's decision to do this affects way more people than the number of people who are going to be asked to agree to this privacy policy. It's probably going affect me personally, and I don't have a business relationship with them. And probably a whole lot of other people.
        • by PDHoss (141657) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:22PM (#15577941)

          you could just show some evidence that the person may be linked to a terrorist organization, and wahlah, you have a warrant

          TERRORIST KEYWORD PROBABILITY: 92.89% IP LOGGED. FEDERAL FISTING IMMINENT.
  • by Bananatree3 (872975) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:28PM (#15577497)
    if the other telcos started doing the same thing. In the beginning they simply said all their interactions were "classified" with the governement, building a huge smokescreen with which to hide behind. Now they have to deal with lawsuits, and they slip this into their privacy statement to stymie the 'suits. Knowing how telcos really like to avoid such suits I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T has started a fad.
  • by Jerf (17166) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:28PM (#15577500) Journal
    Reminding you once again that any privacy policy [sbc.com] that includes the clause that it can be changed at any time with minimal notification and no consent is no privacy policy at all.

    (To be fair, the linked policy does have a nod towards "materially different" changes to the privacy policy. But guess who decides what "materially different" is...?)
  • by Mad Dog Manley (93208) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:28PM (#15577501)
    As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"

    Don't you see, AT&T is doing this for you, the valued customer. It is in your best interests. Don't you want to be kept safe from the evil0rz criminals?

    In Canada, the Privacy Act restricts the ability of corporations to share private information. Admittedly it's not perfect, but it appears to be better than what exists in the United States.
      • by Mad Dog Manley (93208) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:40PM (#15577611)
        They're not protecting their customers, they're protecting themselves.

        That's not all. The wording in the old privacy policy said:

        the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process to the extent required and/or permitted by law"

        New policy:

        the company "may disclose your information in response to subpoenas, court orders, or other legal process"

        Looks like the law isn't important to them anymore.
  • With my bride and I both using cell phones as our primary line, I've put off canceling them on my POTS line for long distance service. Well no more - the $8USD/month (was $3, but it looks like it jumped up with extra fees) just to have the service is not a lot of cash, but at least I'll get a chance to give AT&T a big old FU and the horse you road in on. The rep had the brass to say this was something to strengthen my 'privacy', then started on a song and dance about September 11th.

    For those in the US, 1-800-222-0300 option 6 gets you where you need to go. Expect a 30 minute (or more) wait time.

    Fuckers...
  • by tabdelgawad (590061) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:43PM (#15577635) Homepage
    I was going to submit the following Salon article to the front page, but this will have to do

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_n sa/index_np.html [salon.com]

    You have to wonder if the two stories are related.
  • sheep (Score:5, Insightful)

    by non (130182) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:51PM (#15577698) Homepage Journal

    i hate regulation...
    privacy policy...
    etc.

    are you people stupid? you must be, the government just announced it spent 30 million of your money to buy exactly this type of information. in my mind thats the ultimate indignation, they broke the law, and operated against my interests using my cash. if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are...
  • by Anonymous Bullard (62082) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:00PM (#15577782) Homepage
    Although most Americans seem to accept this kind of erosion of personal privacy in the name of comrade Bush's long war of terror or simply as the undeniable birthright of large corporations, only a handful understands that these kind of US policies are helping spread the big chill across other continents as well.


    Forgetting about hypocrisy for a moment, there was a time when the US would advocate and to an extent even represent personal freedoms in most other parts of the world. Now it's all empty talk in inaugural speeches about the great USA is helping oppressed people regain their freedoms but as it happens most of those people desperately needing american support just happen to be oppressed by so-called allies in this "war of terror, countries like China etc.

    For those of us who actually live under undemocratic governments, the fact that american telecoms are helping the government track people and their interests is making it painfully easy for other freedom-hating regimes to impose similar or worse policies which only help chill the personal freedoms even further.

  • Corporate Espionage (Score:5, Interesting)

    by W.Mandamus (536033) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:04PM (#15577813)
    "While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

    So lets see:
    If I work at AT&T and a headhunter calls me at work or at home the corporation to check my phone records to "protect its legitimate business interests".

    If I am a competitor of AT&T's, AT&T can find out what VC's I've been calling to "protect its legitimate business interests".

    If I am sueing AT&T, AT&T can check my phone records to find out when I called my lawyer to "protect its legitimate business interests".

    If I sign a contract with AT&T to provide me with my competitors phone records AT&T can do it to "protect its legitimate business interests".

    You know if I were in charge of secruity for a major corporation I would be extremely worried about this.
  • by fallen1 (230220) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @03:18PM (#15577912) Homepage
    If AT&T can unilaterally change the privacy policy as it applies to users of those services (primarily individuals) what is stopping them from doing to same thing to small business as well as big business/coporations? Hmm? Lawyers? - perhaps. If I had a small business that used AT&T in any way, shape, form, or fashion I would be IMMEDIATELY and deeply concerned about the privacy of my business documents that are being transmitted over AT&T's network - by any means (T1/T3, OC3, Frame Relay, VPN, etc. - even encrypted communications). Suddenly all of my VERY sensitive corporate secrets become the property of AT&T? My e-mails are all logged? My browsing and viewing habits as CEO of said corporation are now catalogued and kept in a database at AT&T's Galactic Data Core? As a private citizen of the United States of America and as a corporate employee I say, unequivocally, FUCK THAT.

    Every concerned citizen and individual should rail against these changes in their policy - even if you don't use their service now. Write to them and explain, calmly and rationally, why you would never use their service and how you will do everything in your power to explain to family and friends why THEY should not use their service either. Dissatisfied people talk to loads of other people. Pissed off people talk to loads of other people. ANYTHING negative gets spread, on average, 10 times more than positive things do. When was the last time someone you know went to the doctor and said they had a great visit? Probably can't remember that, but I can guarantee that _someone_ you know has been to the doctor/dentist/etc. in the past 2 weeks and has vented a complaint about "I had to wait FOREVER to even see the doctor and he was only in there for 5 minutes" or something along those lines. Will a write-in campaign from both people who are on their service as well as those who aren't work? MAYBE. Yes, capital maybe since is always an If. Corporations tend to be a little more responsive to loads of negative press and negative write-ins than the goverment of the USA seems to be. If a good many small businesses and larger businesses/corporations jump on the write-in bandwagon too (especially those affected by HIPAA, Sa-Ox and other "privacy" concerns) then I'd give it a good chance.

    Not to mention who did NOT see this coming? Any company that uses the frigging DEATH STAR as a corporate logo has to be aiming for world domination somehow ;-)
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:28PM (#15577499)
      No, a company will most likely not punish themselves for violating their privacy policy. However, my understanding is that they do constitute legally binding agreements with regards to what they do with your information. If the company is found to have violated the agreement that was presented to you, then you do have legal grounds to pursue them for damages. Of course, IANAL, so the preceding may be completely wrong.
    • by qbzzt (11136) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:30PM (#15577512)
      The privacy policy is part of the contract. A company that violated its privacy policy, in a way that could be proven at court, could be sued. It's not a very strong guarantee (guess who can afford the better lawyers), but it's something.
    • by richg74 (650636) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:42PM (#15577632) Homepage
      Yes, they can do just that.

      While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T.

      This really summarizes the legal problems with privacy here in the US. Although the data that people collect on you is "personal to you", it almost always, legally, belongs to whoever collected it. The hodgepodge of Federal and state laws doesn't help. For example, here in Virginia, my medical records are the property of my doctor. It was only relatively recently that legislation was passed that gives me the statutory right to see my own medical records.

      This also relates directly to the more-or-less careless approach many firms take to protecting personal data. If the data belongs to them, they are that much more insulated from any legal consquences of losing it.

      Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] has discussed this in a number of his blog posts and essays.

    • by Oswald (235719) on Wednesday June 21 2006, @02:56PM (#15577739)
      Well, it's interesting, but it kind of misses the point. I don't have anything to hide from the NSA; that's not why I want them to stop spying on Americans. I want them to stop spying on Americans because stopping is the right, legal thing to do. Attempting to circumvent their procedures might give be fun in a "stickin' it to the man" sort of way, but it doesn't really take us where we want to go.