T-Mobile Facing Lawsuit Over Text Message Censorship 181
Tootech writes with this quote from Wired:
"A mobile-marketing company claimed Friday it would go out of business unless a federal judge orders T-Mobile to stop blocking its text-messaging service, the first case testing whether wireless providers can block text messages they don't like. EZ Texting claims T-Mobile blocked the company from sending text messages for all of its clients after learning that legalmarijuanadispensary.com, an EZ Texting client, was using its service to send texts about legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California. 'T-Mobile subjectively did not approve of one of the thousands of lawful businesses and non-profits served by EZ Texting,' according to New York federal lawsuit."
Well they are private (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Medical marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
A possible outcome is that the messages in question will be subpoena'ed and forwarded to the DEA.
That said, T-Mobile, even if acting in the interests of not supporting illegal solicitation of drug business, is way out of line to be going after the marketing company over the actions of one of it's own clients.
Re: (Score:2)
obama has stated that the 'war on drugs' is now the lowest prio in law enforcement. things have, in this regard, changed a lot since bush left office.
and as a calif. bay area resident, I can say that things have been much more relaxed the last few years, just in general, overall.
this is not anything about a federal move; its a single company with a moral judgement and putting itself up as judge and jury on this contentious political topic.
they should be fined so heavily as to send a clear message about 'se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>they should be fined so heavily as to send a clear message about 'selective filtering' due to political or religious (lets be honest, here) reasons.
Not sure I agree with you. Reading between the lines I get "Marketing firm lays the censorship card when falling foul of spam filter".
I hope they get laughed out of court, if spam filters become suable as illegal censorship we may be back on the road to endlessly reading about penis enlargement and 28 million unclaimed tax free dollars from a deposed Nigerian dictator or how we can even loose 50 pounds of fat an hour using this weird old tip (I'm guessing sharp scissors and a hoover).
Re:Well they are private (Score:5, Informative)
but it wasn't spam.
no one is against actual spam filtering. but this was request/response, and that's not spam.
from TFA:
EZ Texting offers a short code service, which works like this: A church could send its schedule to a cell phone user who texted "CHURCH" to 313131. Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting's customers upon request. Each of its clients gets their own special word. A party supplier might get "PARTY."
this isn't spam, its request/response.
to block that is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe they advertise it as a "selectively filtered text message service". The only thing I can find about filtering from a quick glance at the messaging section of their website is this, which talks about user-controlled filtering: http://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm23533.xml [t-mobile.com]
As long as they're obeying the law (Score:2)
isn't that the question? why a judge is getting involved?
to decide if they are obeying the law or not?
Re: (Score:2)
The medical marijuana situation is a bit tricky. In the states where it is legal, police are in general instructed NOT to cooperate with the feds on such cases. If the DEA gets TOO heavy handed in those states, it may become a sort of de-facto actively hinder the feds in general order. The Feds do not want the states themselves to start challenging their threadbare claim to Constitutional authority under interstate commerce.
There's a reason the DEA doesn't generally bust the dispensaries that are in well kn
Re:Well they aren't spam (Score:5, Informative)
"Mobile phone users only receive text messages from EZ Texting’s customers upon request."
You text a request and it sends you a response, that's how EZ Text works. But don't read the article or anything.
Re:Well they aren't spam (Score:5, Informative)
Also, there is no requirement that TMobile actually deliver *any* sms message - read your contract. the big print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Re:Well they aren't spam (Score:4, Interesting)
Dont we already have telephone neutrality?
Re:Well they aren't spam (Score:4, Informative)
Really? That's why it was broken up? It was too socialist? Wow. Thanks for that informative info Mr. AC. And here I was thinking because they were horribly abusing their monopoly power. Why, I guess I didn't realize that and I really should have loved having to pay rent on every phone in my house because you weren't allowed to own your own phone. You had to rent ALL your equipment from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Example (Score:5, Informative)
Sucker texts BUZZ420, gets the "Sorry you didn't win, btw did you know that yadda yadda yadda."
He gets the spam after sending the short code. They will claim a pre-existing relationship from some email he may or may not have clicked on 5 years ago from some other place that included crap about sending offers from their "partners".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I suspect this is far more simple than that. Medical Marijuana is illegal. In EVERY state. Period. We all already know that Interstate Commerce laws trump any state law. Do we have to agree with that? No. Can the states decide to continue to ignore that fact? Sure. But the fact is, in Federal Court, such things dont matter. It is still illegal at the federal level.
As a company, T-Mobile cannot allow the use of their services to knowingly allow such drug transactions or discussions related to such t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is bullshit. "Attempt to" means a best effort or at the very least a reasonable effort attempt. If you didn't deliver the message because your spam filter stopped it, you didn't attempt to deliver it, for any reasonable definition of "attempt".
Of course the court might still agree with you, being run by lawyers rat
Re: (Score:2)
...if you read your contract, they have no obligation...
... they have no contractual arrangement...
IANAL
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Censorship in the West is almost always private-vs-private.
Often, the courts serve as weapon to enforce private interests (see: libel tourism, CDMA takedowns, Wikileaks vs Bank Julius Baer, etc). This is sometimes called Accidental Censorship, but at the end of the day someone always wants this to happen, and the threat to democratic discourse and political minorities is just as real.
Here's a discussion of the concept:
http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/11/accidental-censorship-how-policy.html [globalintegrity.org]
Re:Well they are private (Score:5, Funny)
If we could get the courts to send CDMA take down notices, I think a lot of Verizon and Sprint customers would be pissed and AT&T would be shitting gold bricks....
Not common carrier (Score:2, Informative)
Cell companies can block whatever they want. (Unless the law has recently changed and I didn't know about it.)
.
Re:Not common carrier (Score:4, Interesting)
That's wonderful news to me.
That means that when my girlfriend calls me on my mobile phone to break up with me, I can sue the mobile phone company for emotional distress! After all, they didn't have to deliver the call and they didn't check to see that the girl was emotionally stable before whitelisting her phone number.
The state of law for phone companies is that they just provide service, they aren't responsible for what goes over their lines as long as the bill is paid on time and they comply with court orders. Bridge operators aren't liable if somebody drives guns over the bridge contrary to state law, and phone companies aren't liable if somebody phones in a bomb threat.
However, once a carrier starts picking and choosing who they let use their service, they are no longer a common carrier. FedEx isn't liable when a misc package blows up. Sears is liable if a Sears truck delivers a package that blows up - since Sears doesn't deliver for the public.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That means that when my girlfriend calls me on my mobile phone to break up with me
look, if you want to be believable here, you have to avoid outright lies.
this is slashdot.
come on.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just unlikely she'd use a phone. Facebook would be favorite, Twitter a close second.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it legal for a carrier to block messages from a legitimate customer unless the messages were spam? If they are offensive or illegal then its up to the police, yes? Isn't there regulations to stop carriers from either spying on or interfering with communications?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they can block spam stems from the fact that they can randomly pick what they want to let through and what they don't. Not the other way around.
You can also randomly pick where you want to do business.
What you don't get to do is tell someone else how to run their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I though the US was found [wikipedia.org] on opposition to East Indian Company and its bought laws.
It's truly a pity when the lessons of history are forgotten: a large enough business is indistinguishable from any other empire.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that blocking spam from their cell network is not the same as getting the government to tax items for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm just saying it's the same ballpark."
"Ain't no fucking ballpark. Look, maybe your method of government corruption differs from mine, but blocking spam and sticking your tongue in the public coffers ain't in the same ballpark--they ain't even in the same league--they ain't even the same fucking sport."
Re: (Score:2)
Opt-in? Hahahaha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to get removed, and they don't.
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
Now if they had to pay every recipient - even a penny - spam would almost disappear. So don't tax email or spam - just make it a micro-transaction from one party to the other, and allow for me to white-list people who can send me stuff for free, and blacklist others who will have to pay a buck.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are confusing opt-in with opt-out. Opt-in means I don't even get the first message unless I requested it.
Re:Opt-in? Hahahaha! (Score:4, Informative)
He wasn't confusing it. He's saying the other end will claim you opted-in.
C//
Re: (Score:2)
Tom Hudson said "They all claim to be opt-in.".
You responded to Tom's post. He's saying a spammer will claim that you opted in to receive their spam. Granted, if you had some literal white listing technology on your side, you could block this, but disregarding technology, and looking at law, it's worth noting that laws requiring this and that (such as opt-in) will be of little interest to the unscrupulous.
What Tom was saying is that if the carriers charged to deliver email, the unscrupulous would be directl
Re: (Score:2)
Then, since you contacted them to get off their spam list, they now have a "previous relationship" with you.
You don't understand how this works do you? That scenario is specifically forbidden in the law. They cannot use your removal call as a basis for a "previous relationship."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The money has to be paid up front, same as postage stamps. 1 cent an email if you're not on my white list.
Users of email will most certainly put up with it - if you're on my white list, it costs nothing for us to email each other. I can ask you to add others, and vice versa. Everyone else, pay 1 cent from your isp account to my isp account before your mail is sent.
Q&A (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Explain to me why you file this lawsuit in a federal court in New York and not a state court in California - where a judge just might be a little less hostile to the trade in 'medical' marijuana."
Yeah, because no one in New York finds marijuana to be acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Block All Marketing Texts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What?!?!?!?!?
You pay to receive text messages? What the hell is that all about then?
Re: (Score:2)
greed. Yes, it costs me 5 cents to view a text message that I have received.
Re: (Score:2)
What?!?!?!?!?
You pay to receive text messages? What the hell is that all about then?
Kind of explains why consumer debt is so high eh? ;)
I had the same reaction when I tried to get a US phone and they told me I'd pay for messages received. The worst part was they thought I was the crazy one for not thinking it was normal.
Re:Block All Marketing Texts (Score:5, Informative)
The US Mobile Market in a Nutshell:
There are four nationwide networks, owned by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon. (Various MVNOs and regional carriers as well, but they're not relevant to this discussion.)
Sprint and Verizon use CDMA, but do not use a UICC or other SIM-equivalent. They will not activate each other's phones. If you want to be on their network, you have to buy their phone. AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM, but their 3G frequencies are different, so you can only get EDGE speeds on a phone not made for that network. If you want a modern phone, you have to buy one specifically for one carrier. Furthermore, only T-Mobile offers a discount if you bring your own phone. As a result, Americans are always under contract, because it makes no sense not to take the new phone every other year.
As a result of the decision long ago to have mobile phones get numbers in the area code in which they are physically located, rather than a separate one for mobiles only, the person with a mobile phone pays for incoming and outgoing phone calls. (There's no easy way to know for certain that a given phone number is mobile vs landline, and nearly all Americans have had unmetered local calls for ages.) Minutes are minutes, and it doesn't matter who called whom. While this is a different decision from the European model, there is some reasonable logic - the benefit of being mobile accrues to the person with the mobile phone, so they should pay for it.
All the systems include caller ID, so there's also an opportunity to reject the call and not be charged. Furthermore, all numbers in the country are considered the same - calling a landline, a mobile, a mobile on another network - all charged out of your minutes. VOIP providers follow this same model; you pay a per-minute fee for calls, but the fee is the same regardless of what kind of number you are calling. So the benefit is that American mobile service, while expensive and cumbersome due to the one-carrier-per-phone situation, works exactly as if you were at home when traveling. No roaming fees, even if you travel thousands of miles, as long as you're still in the US.
Following the same logic, we pay to send and receive SMS. This is unconscionable, since you can't decline an SMS from an unfamiliar number, but the FCC is a creature of its regulatees, and so it does nothing. If you do find out someone does not have an unlimited SMS plan, you could easily empty their prepaid account or give them a thousands-of-dollars bill on a postpaid, just by sending them texts all day and night. The only solution is to get an unlimited plan or tell your carrier to reject all SMS.
Re:Block All Marketing Texts (Score:4, Interesting)
I had tmobile on pre-paid. I got a few text spams. I called to complain it was going against my balance. they said there was nothing they could do! not block me on incoming or even disable the sms service.
I watched my service drain. then I threw the phone away and never renewed with tmobile.
I will never buy a tmobile phone again, either. that one simple thing turned me off that I now add them to my do-not-buy list. I think they were the only carrier at the time that refused to disable sms on prepaid, upon owner's request.
Re: (Score:2)
there is some reasonable logic - the benefit of being mobile accrues to the person with the mobile phone, so they should pay for it.
You could also argue that the benefit in being able to contact someone who is away from their landline accrues to the one placing the call, and so they should pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why both are charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bull crap. Send a text to your house number. I know FOR CERTAIN Verizon Wireless will text you back in about 1 second saying the number is a land line number, and to confirm you want them to call the number and read your text to whoever answers.
If it's sooo hard to tell, this service wouldn't be responding in such a quick fashion. I guess the only case where it *MAY* be difficult is if someone ported a land line
Re: (Score:2)
"Your message was successfully delivered to phone number 814-692-####. Thanks for using Text to Landline from Immix Wireless."
Re: (Score:2)
with all 4 carriers calls set/recieved to mobile numbers from that carrier are free
Thanks for the tip. I knew that used to be an option you had to pay for, didn't realize it was now standard.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, we pay for each text message that we receive... Imagine if your ISP allowed only 100 emails per month, unsolicited email would not be tolerated.
Why do you pay for this "service"? By your own argument, wouldn't the world be a better place if we let the spammers make people pay for useless text messages? What a great way to tell people, "Hey! you're being exploited by a business that preys upon the ignorant."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would they do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this action would remove their common carrier status? Now that they have demonstrated they have the capability to censor content, they can assume responsibility for other content that they allow through?
Also, for those saying it is not censorship because it is not the government....no. Just no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
capability to censor content? That might be the end result but they have the companies phone number who is sending this. Telecoms have been able to block phone numbers for quite a while now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the possible relevance of your point?
This is blocking based on message content, not just blacklisting a number.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Censorship is the result of something being censored. It does not matter if it is a government, Microsoft or a cell phone company doing the censoring. It is still censorship.
Re:Who I origionally tried to reply to (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because I either have access to the "spam folder" where the messages tagged as spam go, or the filter is under my own control.
No, because an anti-virus program is installed by me, and when it finds a virus it tells me what was blocked, why, and how to access the blocked content if I want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying any form of spam filtering is censorship?
Well, yes of course it is !
Anytime someone decides they don't like something, and actively attempts to block it, it is censorship.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Websters does not have the word government anywhere in the definition of censorship or censor. Of course a private company can censor. Broadcast television does it all the time.
The only test for censorship in this case is: 'Did they block a message based ONLY on the content of the message?' If the answer is yes, then it is censorship. That doesn't make it illegal or wrong, it just makes it fit the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you find it acceptable for these types of censorship?
In a lower post, where I actually asked the question of the correct individual. They responded. The crutz of their answer was yes, it is acceptable. They are able to view the contents of the spam bucket and they are the installer of the anti virus.
Marijuana is not legal (Score:2)
Marijuana may be "legal" in California and here in Massachusetts, as far as the state and commonwealth are concerned, but try dealing near a DEA agent even in those states.
It's against Federal law, and as soon as any of those text messages cross state lines, and T-Mobile is aware of it, they can get screwed for it. I don't think it's a matter of the provider seeking them out, but probablu in response to reports and dealing with the matter after being made aware of the issue so they are not accessories to a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as soon as any of those text messages cross state lines, and T-Mobile is aware of it, they can get screwed for it.
They can now. They couldn't before, as they were just a carrier.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that these are just messages about legally available marijuna, not the actual substance itself, traveling through their switches and communications gear don't you?
Should common carriers be allowed to examine your text messages and decide what to block? Your email? Your voice communications?
Should we all be prohibited from talking or texting about things or activities which are illegal in some places but not necessarily where we live?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Trust EZ Texting (Score:5, Informative)
Run by Shane Neman, who also runs "Club Texting," both companies are known for sending out unsolicited text spam, which is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (because the recipient has to pay to receive the message). When not avoiding disclosure of legal liabilities to their customers, they're quietly lobbying the FCC to get the same odious protections Congress gave junk faxers.
http://www.commlawblog.com/tags/club-texting/ [commlawblog.com]
EZ Texting makes sure to send their messages from obfuscated domains [godaddy.com] with "private" registration information [godaddy.com] (spammers apparently don't like being spammed, or being served lawsuits).
I doubt this is less about the content of the advertising and more about T-Mobile responding to customer complaints and attempting to cut off an unlawful advertiser who's trespassing on their networks. A spammer is a spammer is a spammer.
Re:Don't Trust EZ Texting (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case, T-Mobile should have notified EZ Texting that the shutdown was because of complaints about unsolicited texts, which are a violation of their terms of service and of Federal law. I'm sure there have been complaints about EZ Texting - I'm a T-Mobile customer and have called them to complain about unsolicited texts. I've also filed 1088's with the FCC.
Blocking a spammer wouldn't create this lawsuit or publicity.
why can't there be free incoming and 1-800 like # (Score:3, Interesting)
why can't there be free incoming and 1-800 like numbers that are free to to text (they pay the costs) and 1-900 like ones where you don't pay the base rate + there own rate (you just pay there rate)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy Fix (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon did this in 2007 (Score:2)
The move by Verizon Wireless to block--and then unblock--text messages from abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America is being cited as a key example of why the principles of "net neutrality" should be codified into law.
ConsumerAffairs article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/verizon_abortion.html [consumeraffairs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought unsolicited advertising over mobiles was illegal?
In the states don't you guys have to pay for receiving texts as well?
Re:Do u want V1aGra and pr0n txt msgs? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't normally carry a cellphone. but I did for a short while when I had to (life situation) and got a pre-paid cheap unit. it did what I needed it to do, just send and receive phone calls. as it turns out, it was tmobile and there was no way to disable incoming texts. and yes, each one was CHARGED to me. a malicious person could drain down my pre-paid (!) balance and the company would do nothing to help me stop them or even get credit for them (yeah, right, one at a time).
I let my prepaid tmobile run out and I never looked back. they will be the last carrier I ever use, if I do go back to using cellphones again (which I currently do not).
the fact that they charge for INCOMING texts is just beyond reprehensible. when I called to complain they just said 'well, buy a package plan'. yeah, right. NOT the solution I'm looking for, morans.
it may be the same with all carriers, now, though. you can't escape the fees for incoming texts if you are in the US. sucks, big-time!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm i have texting disabled on my tmobile account. It will not receive a text message other than the ones from T-Mobile(about me paying my bill and such), and those are free. Now i don't have a pre-paid sim, so maybe those are different.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, it was (maybe still is) different. I was NOT on contract, I was on pay-as-you-go mode.
they hope to lose you in the noise; tell you to buy a bulk plan so that the 'one or two' (yeah right) spams dont' really cost you anything since you had extra messages in your bulk plan (their sales pitch).
but you can't do that on prepaid. their prepaid 'story' had holes larger than swiss cheese.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how long ago that actually was.
I've been with tmobile for a few years and as long as I remember there has been the ability to block messages.
I just looked to confirm and it's actually more fine grained now. Email, Text, Picture, Content Downloads....or just block them all.
Every carrier I have been with also charged for incoming texts, but I also admit I have only used three in my lifetime. Myself, I rarely use text messages and active discourage anyone from sending me a message. It's far more
Re: (Score:2)
I use NET10 prepay (on AT&T towers), and I only get charged for a text when I open it. I get a tiny preview of the first few letters and the sender for free. On top of that, it's only 5 each without a texting package.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal if the advertising is sent to your existing customers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Poland, I get daily text messages saying that I won a million or a car, or whatever. For me, this is spam and advertisements that I do not want. I pay for my mobile phone and for every text message I send, call I make and whatnot, but the carrier still insists on sending me spam messages which annoy me. On a bad day it can get to five texts of spam and I can't simply ignore my phone thinking "nah, this is probably just spam" without checking it if it is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam, sure, but this is actual opt-in. That is, solicited (no 'un-') commercial email.This is also being done bu one of several carriers that claim they "can't" block text messaging.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs have an established precedent for blocking spam. Same concept, different medium.
Except this isn't spam.
So mod, modding parent interesting or insightful is just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
They are using a limited US resource, in this case the radio spectrum. That might make things a little more complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect. It is the fed's prohibition laws which are actually illegal. The U.S. Constitution has no provision for banning "drugs", and certainly banning plants is just idiotic. The dispensaries are legal in the jurisdictions in which they operate. The federal government, OTOH, has been in operating in violation of its own charter documents for generations and is therefore illegal. While obviously this won't help you in court, it does kind of p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:T-Mobile not part of gov't, so it's not censors (Score:5, Informative)
Where in the hell did you people get the idea that "if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship." It may not be illegal or constitutionally prohibited censorship, but if anybody stops you from communicating anything anywhere, it is censorship. You can argue whether it is legal, ethical, necessary, etc., but it is still censorship.
Re:T-Mobile not part of gov't, so it's not censors (Score:4, Informative)
The definition of the word "censorship" says nothing about the Government. Just because those text messages don't get first amendment protection here doesn't mean they're not being censored.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or can you point me to some definition of censorship that required a government to do the actual censoring?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to signal that you've bombed a dam?
Get him! He's a terrorist!
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise#Organisation [wikipedia.org]