AT&T revises privacy policy

New policy, unlike the old one, spells out the fact that the company owns its customers' phone records.

The story "AT&T revises privacy policy" published June 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[TogetherinParis]

Just say "NEVER" to ATT

Until AT&T revokes it's spurious claim to ownership of my
private telephone records, I will never use AT&T for any service,
nor will I buy any AT&T product.

[Joe Bolt]

Suggestion & questions for bubba

Bubba writes:

"Until AT&T revokes it's spurious claim to ownership of my private telephone records, I will never use AT&T for any service, nor will I buy any AT&T product."

I'm sure AT&T will be crushed to hear this.

Since NONE of the telephone companies believe that these are 'your private records', I suggest you buy a couple of tin cans and a long piece of string.

Question 1: Since you use the telephone company's equipment and the telephone company's lines and the telephone company's people when you have a problem or dial Information for a phone number, why would you think these are 'your' records? Because you initiated the call? What about the person receiving the call? Don't they count?

Question 2: Why do you think they're "private"? If the calls are being sent via microwave, for example, these are known as "public" airwaves. If you want "private" communications, I suggest you use encrypted letters and carrier pigeons.

Question 3: What are you trying to hide, Bubba?

Question 4: If people like you have their way and the NSA is severely curtailed, allowing terrorists to set off a couple of 'dirty bombs' in major American cities, are you going to admit that you were wrong and help pay the families for their losses?

Doubtful, isn't it?

[markdoiron]

Why Lie, Michael Coe?

"'We are not changing how we treat customer information,' said Coe."

Anyone reading and comparing the new and old privacy policies can see that this statement is wrong. Since Michael Coe is the official spokesman for AT&T, it's reasonable to assume that he must know the truth. That makes his statement a bald-faced lie. I doubt he'd have done that without the backing of the corporate exec's.

mark d.

[Zymurgist]

It's not a lie.

In saying that they ar enot changing how they treat customer information, he is just affirming that AT&T utterly ignored the previous privacy policy. The new policy indicates how they've really been operating all along.

For lack of a law that says otherwise, they are well within their rights in this one. Albeit, I don't know why anyone would want them as a provider anymore -- other, than, perhaps they are being more forthrightly honest about their policy than, say, Verizon.

[btl-jooz]

Quite a good read between the lines there!

You made a very good obsevation. Not too many these days have the grey matter to comprehend what is REALLY going on. Sadly, they've sucummed to the brainwashing that's been going on for decades now.

[btl-jooz]

Isn't it sad...

...that there are people who don't have the grey matter to comprehend what is REALLY going on here. It's quite sad that there are people who have sucummed to the brainwashing that has been going on for decades now.

At least there are a FEW of us remaining who haven't had that happen to us ... YET ... and hopefully never. It's US who will be the ones to have to do the fighting to take our country back by whatever means we have available...even if it's what remains of 'Free Speech' to try to educate/deprogram the poor brainwashed sots of this once Great Country!

[Maccess]

Return of the anti-competitive practices

... troubling from the privacy aspect, but even more troubling from the anti-competitive practices aspect.

This phrase is troubling:

"business records that are owned by AT&T. As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

It's carte blanche permission for AT&T to use whatever travels along its phone lines to "protect its business interests," and that includes protecting it from competition.

It seems like the old AT&T broken up in the 1990s is back.

[btl-jooz]

Yes, the Old AT&T is baaaaack.....

It was anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws that broke it up to begin with. WHERE are the NOW?????

With the Old AT&T back and this 'new' "revision" of it's TOS the 'gov' has yet an EASIER way of tracking everyone regardless of that tired out and extremely TRITE phrase: whether or not "they have something hide". Forget about the Bill of Rights and the RIGHT TO PRIVACY!

Welcome to the United Fascist States of America!!! Zieg Hiel!!!!!

[zxocuteboy]

AT&T SUCKS!!!! NSA Next?

What is next??? Our thoughts belong to them too???

Make them mad, check out the NSA AT&T documents:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/05/wired-publishes-att-nsa-documents.html" target="_newWindow">http://zxo.blogspot.com/2006/05/wired-publishes-att-nsa-documents.html</a>

[btl-jooz]

'Interesting' website there ;)

n/t

[jambato]

ATT, your privacy delivered

ATT is in clear violation of our constitutional rights. It is a disgrace
for our country. Unfortunately, they have the monopoly in the
market so they can do whatever they please.

[btl-jooz]

Exceedingly TRUE!!!

As for the Constitution, wasn't it President George W. Bush that stated, "I'm tired of hearing about the Constitution! It's just a 'G/D' piece of paper!!!" ;)

REMEMBER this in November!!!!!!!!!!!!!!