Will AT&T Start Filtering Your Connection? 213
I think this is a crucial distinction, because efforts to filter end users' connections (as opposed to making them pay consequences for their actions after the fact) have always been controversial, even when the content is illegal. The Center for Democracy and Technology successfully overturned a Pennsylvania law that required ISPs to block overseas child pornography sites, partly on the grounds that the filtering included many third-party Web sites as collateral damage. I've argued that a similar private-sector initiative called Canada Cleanfeed, where Canadian ISPs attempt to block child pornography Web sites, would do more harm than good. On the other hand, nobody's fighting very hard for the cause of child pornography downloaders who were caught and arrested. Web sites get sued and shut down all the time, but it was bigger news when Canadian ISP Telus blocked the Web site of a Telus labor union for three days. So it's a big deal whether we're talking about "pre-emptive" filtering, or fighting piracy "reactively" by going after violators.
AT&T Senior VP James Cicconi said in e-mail that "discussion about what the technology will or won't do is premature until we can invent it", but most of the hints so far have been that the anti-piracy technology will be "pre-emptive", i.e. filtering users' connections. Cicconi said on a conference panel that AT&T has to spend billions on network maintenance to carry illegal pirated traffic -- which they probably couldn't recoup by suing people, so the only way to prevent that would be to block it. And Cicconi has referred to the technology several times as a "network-based solution" -- but what else could that mean, except filtering?
So let's assume that's what's on the horizon. Interestingly, Cicconi said that AT&T did not plan to block actual Web sites. However, he said in e-mail, "If one could, with a high degree of certainty, spot and isolate illegal traffic from an offshore site, would you not think the copyright holders would have a reasonable argument for a court order to block that traffic (as opposed to the site itself)?" Presumably this could refer to a Web page with an index of links to BitTorrent files -- so they'd be willing to block the BitTorrent links, but not the Web page? But from that point of view, why not just block Web sites too? If an overseas webpage has a list of links to pirated content, and that content is served over http from the same Web server, wouldn't they want to block it?
But I doubt this would stem much piracy in the long run, because connection filtering to fight piracy became more commonplace, then the next generation of p2p file-trading programs would all just have circumvention capabilities built into them, that let you route your connection through a friend at an unfiltered ISP. You're on AT&T, you upload a file to your friend on Verizon which earns you some "credits" with his node in the p2p network, and instead of redeeming those credits to download a file from him, you use his node as a proxy to download a file indirectly from a site in Russia that AT&T is blocking you from accessing. Advanced users can do this already with tools like Virtual Private Networks and Tor, and some tweaks in a p2p program would just bring it within the range of the casual user.
On the other hand, if AT&T starts filtering traffic, it could set a bad precedent that any time a party in a legal proceeding wants a site declared "illegal", they can demand that AT&T (or other ISPs) block the site. It could be a site libeling a person, or a site hosting a decryption tool that breaks some company's poorly-designed code, or pretty much anything that some powerful person wanted to go away. Meanwhile, if an AT&T customer did get accused of downloading pirated content, now they could invoke the "AT&T didn't stop me" defense -- they thought that AT&T was filtering illegal content, and if they could get to it, then that meant it was legal! In both cases the problem comes from someone using the argument that once AT&T started doing any filtering at all, they should have gone further.
So I would watch the situation closely, even if you're not an AT&T user, and don't assume the situation will take care of itself. Cicconi said, "If a company like ours does dumb things and upsets our customers, we will lose them to someone else," which is something I'm skeptical of whenever I hear it used to defend various draconian anti-spam measures, but in this case I think it's even less applicable. When you're talking about spam filters, at least they always bring some benefit to the user (less spam), and the question is whether the free market weighs those benefits properly against the costs (more lost mail). On the other hand, if an ISP filters the user's connection, that brings no benefit to the user, and in a truly efficient market, all customers of such an ISP would just switch to an unfiltered one -- if that doesn't happen, it simply means the market in that case is not efficient. Is your ISP filtering your connection right now? Probably not, but how could you tell if they were? Right now we assume that ISPs don't filter connections because generally it's "just not done" (except when it is). In a few years we might not be so sure.
Dumb question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Filtering by type (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheap DSL at what price (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Glad someone is sorting this stuff out (Score:5, Interesting)
It's one thing to provide client side filtering, but if they're doing it, they're responsible for what slips through.
I really wished the essay addressed that issue.
What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah and you also have to spend billions maintaining a network so that morons can blather on about inanities! That's what being a telco with common carrier status is all about! You're supposed to recap your expenses with a user fee structure, while being completely disinterested in the nature of the transmitted content, you dumbass! If you don't know that then obviously you're the wrong man for the job!
Re:Dumb question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Next year same time, i expect a class action suit filed against AT&T, which they will settle and continue going on.
The TOR proxy gives us a better option.
Re:Simple answer: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Of course not (Score:5, Interesting)
To say that rules like this don't apply to big corporations is simply not accurate. And while it sometimes seems like big corporations are terribly evil and can get away with anything... the laws often *DO* prevail. They can't pick and choose which laws apply to them no matter how many senators they have in their pockets. This debate is *very* public, so its not like it can slip through the cracks. AT&T will have to duke this one out on their own I suspect.
Re:And when the pirate havens are blocked... (Score:3, Interesting)
Liberty or death. Might as well be the battle cry of the next civil war again. I mean, it has some tradition...
Re:Glad someone is sorting this stuff out (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Trained monkeys (Score:4, Interesting)
The masses want cheap newspapers. They usually don't care about content, they care about their funnies not costing more than 50 cents. And that's quite possible, with companies paying insane amounts of cash for ads.
Here, it is already very blatantly so that companies (banks and car manufacturers, usually), "buy" newspapers. Indirectly. By buying double page ads, often twice or thrice per paper. I once had the chance to ask a higher up at a local bank why the heck they do that. I mean, there can't be any advertising value in doing a double-full page ad twice in the same newspaper.
Answer: "Well, we got a security breach and they know about it, and we don't want them to report it".
He didn't even try to hide it! I mean, here I am, some tech goon and he just says that as if it's normal everyday business to bribe newspapers to suppress some news. I was rather
And soon working somewhere else.
Re:Simple answer: (Score:4, Interesting)
i am hopeing that AT&T is dumb enought to do this - that atleast their techs are not completely evil.
an example would be.. they don't want traffic from say a specific ip block coming accross their network..
if they do it right and just remove the route than any isp that goes to their network will get a route error and will defualt to the next route and the net will route arround them - allowing AT&T to only effect it's network and the rest of the world is happy
on the other hand - if they jsut decied to drop the packets and not issue a routeing error for the subnet then routers will keep sending traffic that way and AT&T will effectivly black hole that block for all of AT&T and the other ip's that happen to route through them
black holeing is very very very very bad