Text 11736, 134 rader
Skriven 2006-06-22 23:34:52 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 11735 av Mark (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: AT&T - we own your records sucker!!!
================================================
From: "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com>

Sorry I really disagree with your reasoning.   Like some other providers all
AT&T had to do was tell the government that information could only be passed to
them with a court order. Instead AT&T after the negative publicity for their
actions  is now screwing their customers. What rationale is there for them to
keep track of my purchases at Yahoo's EnglishTeaStore? Or to track anyone's TV
viewing habits without there express consent? The answer is there is none




"Mark" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:449b5fff$1@w3.nls.net...
>I dunno, I'm not real big on this stuff either, but the article you
>reference strikes me as an example of the simple unintended consequences of
>the over-baked, inaccurate, very loud, outcry, about "domestic spying" that
>the media embraced with gusto and that resulted in the "privacy group"
>filing suit against AT&T et al.
>
> From the article: "AT&T made the change as it fights against a lawsuit
> filed by a privacy group that accuses the company of helping
> anti-terrorism officials monitor networks without court-approved
> warrants."
>
> All they're trying to do is avoid the frivolous lawsuits that cost them,
> and in turn, their customers, big bucks, because those same "privacy"
> groups are incensed that AT&T is actually "helping" anti-terrorism
> officials, indeed they "accuse" them of same, well la-di-dah ain't they
> special in their support of our enemies. <blow me up instead of capturing
> the terrorists Mr. Lawyer, thank you very much, and where will you get
> your fee when we're all dead?>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:449b5396@w3.nls.net...
>> This is the part that riles me. It's a shame as I really liked the
>> EnglishTeaStore on Yahoo but now I'll just have to make my feelings known
>> to the merchants that have affiliated themselves with Yahoo and thus are
>> in partnership with AT&T.
>>
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8IDHDT01.htm?sub=apn_tech_down
&chan=tc
>> Under the new policy, AT&T will collect customers' user names, passwords,
>> charges, payments and online purchases. It will also track their clicks
>> while on sites that AT&T operates in a partnership with Yahoo Inc.
>>
>>
>> "/m" <mike@barkto.com> wrote in message
>> news:rbim92pofa0bsjnbci7089jkeir3jij30b@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> As a potential customer of AT&T in the IPTV arena, I can now state that
>>> I will continue to ship my monthly TV subscription costs to Comcast.  I
>>> had been looking to AT&T to bring some competition to the
>>> TV-distribution market in my local area, however it now appears that
>>> AT&T have imposed far too onerous terms to their subscription
>>> agreements.
>>>
>>> I just hope that AT&T send me postage-paid cards that ask me to sign up
>>> with their TV service.  It's been a while since I've taped the cards to
>>> bricks and dropped them in the mailbox....
>>>
>>> /m
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:31:49 -0400, "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Following Microsoft's lead to phone home, AT&T declares they are the
>>>>phone
>>>>and own your data. They have also said they would track your AT&T cable
>>>>TV
>>>>viewing habits so just leave the tv on FoxNews while it is unattended
>>>><g>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/25968prs20060622.html
>>>>
>>>>NEW YORK -- Changes that AT&T has instituted in its privacy policy are a
>>>>completely inadequate response to the company's apparent betrayal of its
>>>>customers' privacy by illegally providing calling information to the
>>>>NSA.
>>>>
>>>>The changes, as first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, claim
>>>>ownership over its customers' records and sweeping new language
>>>>describing
>>>>the company's uses of the records, including any purpose "involving
>>>>potential threats to the physical safety of any person."  Given that
>>>>even
>>>>the vaguest hunch by the lowest-ranking security guard could qualify as
>>>>a
>>>>"potential threat," AT&T appears to be trying to give itself license to
>>>>do
>>>>whatever it sees fit with customers' data.
>>>>
>>>>It has always been a part of the story that AT&T apparently violated its
>>>>former privacy policy, but that has never been the central problem with
>>>>the
>>>>reported program.  If the allegations are true, AT&T could somewhat
>>>>reduce
>>>>its liability for any participation in "The Program" once the new policy
>>>>goes into effect on Friday.  But such cooperation would still be
>>>>illegal.
>>>>Privacy policies do not trump the laws of the U.S. or individual states.
>>>>For example, Congress has explicitly banned telecoms from providing
>>>>customers' calling information to the government outside of the specific
>>>>legal channels created by Congress.  Many states have similar laws.
>>>>
>>>>And even more fundamentally, by secretly providing customer data to the
>>>>government outside of any legal channel, AT&T has violated the privacy
>>>>expectations of Americans - not just the terms of some legalistic
>>>>privacy
>>>>policy, but their basic expectations for how private communications will
>>>>be
>>>>treated in America.
>>>>
>>>>No tweaks to any fine-print click-through contract unilaterally imposed
>>>>on
>>>>its customers (and changed at will) can alter that fact.  We at the ACLU
>>>>have always maintained that the twisted legalese in corporate "privacy
>>>>statements" is a poor substitute for overarching privacy laws that all
>>>>other
>>>>industrialized nations have adopted.  But in the NSA spying scandal, we
>>>>have
>>>>the all-too-rare instance where existing laws actually do cover the
>>>>behavior
>>>>at issue, making changes to AT&T's privacy policy nothing more than an
>>>>exercise in spin control.
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)