Bruce Schneier opines about AT&T's CEO saying tech companies shouldn't have any input into the crypto debate:
My guess is that AT&T is so deep in bed with the NSA and FBI that he's just saying things he believes justif[y] his position.
Ars Technica has a few words about the matter, or you can head over to the The Wall Street Journal's [paywalled] original interview.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
AT&T Does Not Care About Protecting Your Privacy
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:46PM
I like Bruce Schneier, he's just so fucking polite.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SrLnclt on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:26PM
Precisely. I have avoided business with AT&T when possible for years because of this - way before we learned Snowden's name. Check out the info on room 641A [wikipedia.org] that was exposed a decade ago if you need a refresher course.
Unfortunately I'm fairly certain the other telecom companies aren't any berrer.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday February 12 2016, @04:23AM
You know, it's almost as if the government has waged a successful disinformation campaign about the FBI, CALEA, DSCNET, and the billions in revenue for corporations like Verisign.
How can you not know that EVERY telecom carrier has room 641A implemented EVERYWHERE?
It's the LAW. Every telecom carrier is mandated to install the "mediation" devices on their networks. Most are seemingly outsourcing that to companies like Verisign. At the end of the day though, nearly every telephone connected to a carrier, has the ability to be intercepted in real time by the FBI's platform DSCNET.
This came from earlier versions of the program you may have understood as Clipper and Carnivore. The FBI had major arguments for a long time with the carriers, but that was over who paid for it. The carriers have received a half billion (which was already years ago) to subsidize the installation of the "mediation" devices across the entire voice network.
Without doubt, ALL landlines operated by the major tier-1 carriers ARE HANDLED BY "MEDIATION" switches. It's also highly, highly, likely that Wireless corporations like Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint have been forced to catch up with the implementation of their "media" switches.
Why are Internet communications not also subject to the "mediation" switches? Internet communications are not YET classified as telecommunications. There have been extremely strong moves by the FBI since 2007 to force the FCC to reclassify Internet communications. Once that happens it's NOT a matter of NEW laws, but the enforcement of OLD laws.
CALEA will be applied to the Internet, and the moment it is, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. will all be required to start towing the party line, or pay the price. You will see the "mediation" switches start collecting intelligence metadata instead of unconstitutional behavior by the NSA.
It will be perfectly LEGAL, which is incidentally why these truly horrific people, these cowardly bags of shit, are out complaining about people going "DARK". What they mean by "DARK", is that it's either not covered by CALEA (yet), or that end-to-end encryption was in place preventing the "mediation" switches from collecting what they wanted. The FBI already won the war, only to be very pissed off that people were getting around them because the Internet was invented, and then getting around them further by using the very unpatriotic mathematical principles we call encryption.
When you speak into a phone in the US, be polite, and thank the FBI/NSA for protecting you. They're listening, I guarantee it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:26PM
1 word, boycott.
I won't use at&t for anything.
Too bad Directv got bought out by them. Now I have to find an alternative to my satelite tv service.
I propose we outlaw corporate asshole ceo's and stick them on some remote isolated island somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:38PM
"What will I do without my programming!?!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @04:32PM
Finally start work on something worthwhile...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @05:26AM
...or just get an android box and configure kodi.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:14PM
"But what service will you use when the handful on the market all satisfy your boycott conditions, Mr. Anderson?"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:42PM
Not entirely serious, but definitely funny, and at least slightly on topic now...
https://www.schneierfacts.com/facts/871 [schneierfacts.com]
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:42PM
I'm sure it goes way back before this, but back in 1999, I got slammed [wikipedia.org] by AT&T. They suck. As such, I'm not at all surprised at their attitude.
I strongly recommend not doing business with them.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @12:17AM
Yep, they truely do suck.
I once had a cellular account with them. The coverage sucked. Had a step-daughter going off to college where service was better, gave the phone to her. I paid all her cellular bills during college. After she graduated, I transfered the account over to her after paying off all balances on the account, giving her a clean starting point.
Afterwhich, bills continued to come for what I do not know. No explaination for what. $165.00 due now. I called them to inquire what the bills were for. My name was not on the account and they refused to tell me what the charges were for. I asked the step-daughter to contact them to see what these charges were. They couldn't tell her anything either. Needless to say, those bills went into the trash, and my name eventually went to a collection agency.
AT&T can go straight to hell. Fuck them 1k times over. Never again will those worthless sacks of shit get a penny from me, even if they're the only game in town.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:47PM
All Telemarketing & Telemetry.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:41PM
Does the average user even know about this, much less care? Most young people pick up their iPhones, make a ridiculous face, snapchat it, then play with their Kimojis.
Not to mention the fact that AT&T probably (correctly) assumes that if they don't play ball with the Feds, the Feds may find ways of making them hurt down the road.
This one is just like the bad politician debate: We have bad CEOs and bad products and bad politicians because most people can't be bothered to educate themselves about how the system works and act accordingly. Sadly, they may suffer at the hands of a corrupted government for their unwillingness to engage.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:58PM
I guess we have no reason to be paranoid if they claim we have nothing they need to hide?
The fact they charge extra to stop receiving *their* advertising services on top of the internet connection (the high speed offering), but that they do not make any claim to not collect that data -- you're essentially paying them $29 a month to use an adblocker that only reflects the ads they show themselves.
Why would they want to say no to such instrusive activity if they can profit from all parties involved in the user transaction? The user pays for service and all of these other entities pay in some way to access the users. Subscribers paying extra only hides this from them, it doesn't prevent it from crossing over to your cellular or whatever service. advertising ids exist across service providers, so AT&T is just skimming from the top.
User access has a kind of new meaning now, as it relates to others accessing the user as much as it does the user accessing services.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:01PM
AT&T Does Not Care
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:13PM
You'll never take me alive! [project-retrograde.com]
Anyone can create end to end encryption, you literally can not stop people from twiddling their own bits without destroying the tech sector by outlawing unlicensed compilers. Some of will not stop exercising our freedoms while we have life yet.
Who will fight to protect the rights of those back home if they simply give the rights up later at at the whim of bureaucratic warmongers? It is our duty to uphold our end of the bargain and exercise the rights that good men died to protect. Otherwise, no one will stand to fight on our behalf again.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:16PM
They'll swear up and down that they do care about your privacy, but the only times they actually care are if (1) they are legally required to protect your privacy, and (2) they get caught failing to do so. If they're caught failing to protect your privacy, but aren't legally required to, then they'll have their PR flaks make profuse apologies, say they're doing all sorts of things to change their ways, and then go right back to what they were doing before they were caught. If they are legally required to protect your privacy, but aren't caught, you can assume that they have but never told you about it.
And yes, that goes for seemingly good guys too: Even if their current management is scrupulously ethical, sooner or later the ethical management team will be replaced by an unethical management team.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Daiv on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:16PM
The history of AT&T will show that they have been in bed with the gov since their inception. Given land and land rights, monopolies, billions/trillions of dollars directly from the government. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds for this lame issue. Your paltry $300+ a month for phone/cable/internet, that's nothing in the long run. Gov teat is one that AT&T will be going back to for as long as possible. And if AT&T gets their way, that will be WAY longer than any of us live.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/01/22/0322205 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 12 2016, @02:01PM
Which AT&T are we talking about here? Ma Bell, or the current AT&T which is the rebranded SBC which is one of the "Baby Bells"?
Yes, there's been a cozy relationship between AT&T and the US government historically speaking, but there's absolutely no reason to think that the current incarnation of AT&T is any cozier with the government than, say, Verizon.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Friday February 12 2016, @05:53PM
Yes, the government has two tits. Once for Verizon and the other for AT&T. They're both equal on the issue, but the article is about AT&T. Why would I bring up Verizon as if they're any different?
ALL iterations of AT&T/at&t rely on massive amounts of income from the government. These is no point in specifying which AT&T at any historical point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:25PM
Which tit does MS suckle then? Or is it something further south?