[252] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Heads-Up on possible AT&T Internet monitoring plans
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Wed Jun 13 23:46:28 2007
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200706140241.l5E2f9T4016213@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Greetings. News stories are appearing everywhere about an AT&T plan
to try block pirated content *at the network level*. Typical is:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-piracy13jun13,1,2155771.story
The implications of this sort of network snooping are immense. One
might assume that a primary target will be file-sharing
technologies. But to actually pick out particular content from those
streams would imply the need to actually examine and characterize
the payload of files to locate and block potentially offending music
and/or video content.
AT&T will no doubt suggest that this activity is akin to virus and
spam filtering of e-mail for their customers. This would be a
specious analogy. Spam filtering can usually be controlled by
the user, and virtually all AT&T mail processing can be avoided
by their customers if AT&T servers are not used.
However, it sounds as if AT&T is planning a network monitoring
regime that would not be dependent on the use of AT&T servers.
What's more, the "benefits" of this monitoring would not be
directed to the customers whose traffic is being monitored, but
rather for the benefit of unrelated third parties.
"Fingerprinting" of content for anti-piracy purposes is not always
unacceptable. For example, Google/YouTube is reportedly starting
tests of a copyrighted material characterization blocking system.
Since users submitting videos to YouTube are doing so with the
expectation of that content being hosted there, it is not
unreasonable for YouTube to avoid hosting pirated materials whenever
practicable.
However, AT&T's proper role in this context (among an ever smaller
number of ISP choices) is simply to move customer data traffic
between points, not to be a content policing agent for third-party
commercial interests, or a mass data conduit for government interests
without appropriate legal authority, for that matter. The traffic
under discussion, based on news reports about the AT&T plans so far,
would typically not be directed to AT&T servers, and should not
be subject to content inspection by AT&T, in the absence of specific
targeted court orders or the like.
Finally, perhaps the most illuminating aspect of this situation is a
statement by James W. Cicconi, an AT&T senior vice president, who is
quoted as saying that AT&T wouldn't look at the privacy and other
legal issues involved until *after* a monitoring technology was
chosen.
That pretty much says it all.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP
- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
