Text 11737, 158 rader
Skriven 2006-06-22 22:46:04 av Robert G Lewis (1:379/45)
  Kommentar till text 11736 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: AT&T - we own your records sucker!!!
================================================
From: "Robert G Lewis" <r.g.lewis@comcast.net>

Marketing, pure and simple. Marketers want EVERYTHING, even if it is none of
their &*^&% business ( can you tell I've had some interesting experiences with
Marketing people wanting information they had no legal right to <g>).

Seriously I wonder if the change in terms would be enough to say void a
contract for a cell phone etc singed before they changed terms.

I find the willingness to abandon 200 years of warrants and restrictions on
government power to be frightening. The potential for abuse is staggering.

"Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449b6185@w3.nls.net...
> 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_dow
n&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)