Comments on: AT&T considers filtering for pirated content

During a panel discussion at CES, the head of the carrier's legal team says AT&T is considering using technology that can filter and block copyrighted content.

[gsmiller88]

Wow...

As if it wasn't enough on YouTube, now AT&T is trying to do the
same thing. I knew there was a reason I wasn't an AT&T customer!

[Pete Bardo]

There you go again!

Just when we thought we were rid of AT&T...

Anti-trust breakup. Trust reunited. Secret wire-taps. Illegal release of log files.

Why wouldn't we trust AT&T to filter content?

[Penguinisto]

Go right ahead...

...and the very first time an AT&T customer pirating music, the litigating RIAA record corp should be forced to name AT&T as a co-defendant.

...and the very first time an AT&T customer gets caught downloading child porn onto his machine, AT&T's entire board needs to sit in the docket right next to the pedophile.

...the next spam anyone gets from a compromised AT&T customer's computer? Well, we can now report AT&T as a violator of the CAN-SPAM act.

If you're going to filter based on content, then you are at that point responsible for all content that travels to and from your customer base, whether you manage to catch it all or not. And no, no more safe harbor provision of the DMCA either, big guy... you decided to take responsibility for the content the moment you started filtering your customers based on content.

/P

[gp2792]

you got it

Well stated, I completely agree.

[unknown unknown]

We've seen what happens

When Canadian ISP's started blocking and throttling bittorrent, developers quickly came up with a protocol encryption scheme that made it a little more difficult. I suspect if content filtering becomes common we'll see encryption there as well.

[thomas.terrrainnova.org]

Sure they will

No need to worry, as it can not be done. Theoretically they can, but practically filtering network content on the fly is near-impossible. It requires a huge infrastructure to cope with the enormous amound of data, and even if AT&T is prepared to spend the money (and I'm quite sure they're not) how can you identify what's pirated and what's not? How can you tell the difference between a legal and a pirated MP3?

[Penguinisto]

Depends...

Microsoft and NBC are backing this as well, according to today's New York Times.


If you use a Windows machine, then the Microsoft angle means that you can very readily be locked-out by way of integration with your OS's internal DRM that Windows would already have present in it (at least with Vista it's certain - XP doesn't have quite as much).

I'm sure that AT&T would almost have to have a mandatory "access" app for Mac users that would provide a similar lock-down, but w/ Linux I'm not sure about.

/P

[unknown unknown]

RE

Cisco and other companies make routers capable of deep packet inspection on a surprising scale.

In theory you could finger print the content and check where it's being downloaded from. If it is in the filters database and it is coming from Amazon's or Apple's servers for examples then it can be passed as likely to be legal.

[ralfthedog]

Very good points.

Penguinisto is correct in that this will open up a great legal issue. Unknown is correct that even simple encryption will make this useless. and Thomas is correct in that this will create a large performance hit on the ATT network.

I see many negatives but no gains. This is just a bit of smoke to make the RIAA happy. It will never happen.

[Michael Bird]

To humor the idea that this is even possible...

As competitive as the broadband market has become, does AT&T really think they're doing themselves any favors ingratiating themselves to the entertainment industry at the expense of their customer base?

I can see their rationale, given that the entertainment industry has been playing top to the technically naive Congress's bottom. But as the old "system of pipes" dogs die and retire off, this is going to change, which is to say nothing of the fact that a corporation-run government over the next four years is unlikely to say the least.

The only certainty is that the second someone thinking they are enjoying a level of privacy gets red-flagged and denied service, the word is going to spread quickly and customers will jump from AT&T in mass exodus.

[CaptainMooseInc]

Sure thing...

Comcast fully blocked all BitTorrent traffic in my area. I moved from one side of town to the other in Sept 2007 and had Comcast for a month. I couldn't get BitTorrent to work so I dumped them and had AT&T U-Verse come out and hook me up.

No bandwith limitations like Comcast has. Comcast refused to disclose, AT&T flatout said I could use the 6mbps/1mbps connection to 100% 24/7 365 days a year and they wouldn't complain. So far that's been true.

AT&T starts filtering it'll be onto the next network that won't limit me or block my traffic. Even if that means paying for expensive high-grade business service lines.

[David_Burt]

ISP filtering is the wave of the future

It's happening in Australia and Japan now for porn, in the UK for child porn. It will happen here too. Lots more on my blog all about filtering at www.filteringfacts.org

--David Burt

[JadedGamer]

SSL - HTTPS, SFTP, ...

"What? No, you don't get to see what I transfer on my secure connection. Yes, it's strange that I suddenly started using SSL for everything, and it's sad that your "filter" cannot see what I do. But them's the breaks."

[directorblue]

The beginning of the end of the Internet

Whatever AT&T is intending to do, it ain't TCP/IP.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[chonnom]

I've got an idea

Instead of spending all the money on this, why don't they fix their existing system so I can get the speed I'm paying for.

[umbrae]

Glad I do not use AT&T...

Not only will they hand over your records to the government without a warrant; now they will censor your content. I guess AT&T must be owned by China since this is something I would expect their government to do.

Support Net Neutrality....

[winstein]

AT&T wants to get PAID!

The truth is that AT&T wants to get paid by the studios.

[hawkeyeaz1]

The true meaning of pirate

Is being lost. Yes, it is wrong to distribute movie content you do not have the rights to. And, yes it is often (but NOT always) wrong to download content you did not pay for.

A pirate, before the internet became what we know it to be, a pirate was someone who copied the content and sold it to make a peronal profit. The person who borrowed the content and copied it, or bought a pirated copy was not a pirate. Today, the people who download from pirates, who copy the content they borrow, are also labeled as pirates, incorrectly. The downloader may be pirating (i.e. redistributing illegally), but simply downloading for personal use is not pirating. It is not always fair use either. I will not deny the content owner looses a sale, and *that* is wrong in most cases.

Regardless, it is not the distributor's job to police the content. People will just use encryption to by-pass it. Yes, the kys is exchanged so ISPs can do a man in the middle attack, but there are ways around that as well.

[thedreaming]

Piracy

The MPAA and RIAA are getting desperate and are trying to convince/bully isps into helping them stop piracy. ISPs want to get involved because all the piracy eats their bandwith, slowing down users that use the internet for other activities.

[jelyse]

If at first....

AT&T couldn't sell the idea of the Information Highway as a toll road, so they'll build the toll booths now and hope to man them later....