AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter

AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter

bits.blogs.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
www.abc.net.au

This is very frightening news.

We will soon be receiving filtered internet service. Freedom of speech on the internet is ending sooner than we thought.

Bye bye unrestricted surfing




bits.blogs.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Very interesting indeed. It is funny how profit and freedom compete on every level. I wonder who will win in the long run?

Good find Biggie! Btw, My holidays were grand, as I am sure yours were as well. Can't wait to change the world with you.

AAC

More censorship in the news:


Dan Rather lawsuit to move forward





So not only is our news being filtered already, (duh) reporters who are trying to do their job are being fired and silenced. Figures, [-snip-] fascists (Don't worry socialists/commies I didn't forget about you , you're just as bad).

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/10/2008 by Gools]

Yes this is bad.
If they start filtering for copyrighted material, what else could they start filtering for? As has been said above, our broadcast news is being censored. Reporters have been removed because the slant on the story was not what the powers at be wanted. So now we know they are filtering, and the people doing the filtering will be filtering what ever is in there own best interest.
Yes freedom of information may be at an end for what is supposed to be a free country.

Since it's being done by corporations there will be no choice for consumers unless the government steps in. It will be a take it or leave it proposition. The only way consumers would have impact is is they migrate to a company that doesn't filter. Since AT&T owns many Internet backbones that would be difficult for customers to do. And the probability of people giving up the Internet for the period of time needed to shut down a few large players is low. Anyway, once filters are in place, one can bet that they won't ever be completely disabled if customers demand that they be. If they are publicly discussing it, we can also bet that the Internet corporations have already tested the viability of filtering to some extent already.

My view is that the Internet should be left wide open. My hope is that government shares that belief. I know that corporations do not. They want to control information and access to it. Power and profits are reduced with informed customers and citizens. The corporations will argue that because they provide access to the Internet, that means that they are the Internet. Of course, that's a lie, but that's what they will argue. And with the tons of money that they have to throw at the case, they just might make the case in their favor. Hopefully organizations like the EFF will continue to defend our liberties with tooth and nail. Hopefully people worldwide will not stand for corporate hegemony for too much longer. It's up to people of all wired nations to stand up against this, not just Americans. We're dealing with transnationals.

I'm puzzled as to how, exactly, this is going to work.

How are they, at the packet level, going to determine if that particular data is copyrighted?

I can see this causing many headaches in the long run. It could end up with legitimate traffic being penalised wrongly after being misdiagnosed as "copyrighted".

I have a feeling Microsoft has that part covered.

But there's plenty of providers who use cogent, qwest, level3. Just have to poke who's local. As long as it's voluntary there will always be someone who doesn't use [insert obvious provider name here] and they're going to get rich.

I just renewed my [insert obvious provider name here] DSL contract for another 12mos. This certainly is teh suck. I've haven't been on the radar but this is still bad form.





[edit on 9-1-2008 by apc]

some isps have tested this by limiting the number of connections that can be made through personal isp lines in return blockig p2p programs from operating the way they normally do some p2p will make as many as 2500 connections at a time for quicker downloads ;imiting connections to smaller amounts wont stop normall browsing of the internet just downloading single files from multiple users

I guess most of you guys would already know this, but here in Australia the Prime Minister wants an automatic filter put on all ISPs to filter out pr0n. That's fair enough, but that sort of filtering should be asked of people when they sign up, 'do you want the clean feed?'. I'm not sure where that type of filtering could stop at either, first pr0n, then what, ATS???

reply to post by apc

---

MS? Hahaha....

I am not confident in this system working, at least in the immediate future. Such huge amounts of traffic transit the global networks that sniffing every packet would only add to latency, management costs (in an industry that has shrinking margins and growing costs) and only cause issues for legitimate traffic.

reply to post by JBA2848

---

Thing is that there is plenty of legitimate P2P traffic on the web as well. doing what you describe would penalise all users of a perfectly allowable downloading method.

I've been thinking about internet censorship a lot recently and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not too worried. When you really think about it "they" have no idea of what really goes on on the net. Sure, "they" have their tentacles in the big things like MySpace, Facebook etc but the true internet goes under their radar most of the time.

I think a lot of people don't have a proper understanding of how the web works and so they freak out at the first mention of internet censorship. However, there are a few different techniques that are used by people in countries where the net is censored such as China. I'm not sure if the TOS allows me to explain deeper or if that would fall under the category of subverting the authoritarian rule of our country. Just search around and you'll find it.

The idea that "they" would want to filter out copyrighted material is perfectly logical and expected. The only problem has been, and always will be, that the pirates will always work diligently to circumvent copyright protection. In fact, that very fight between the corporations and the pirates is what will lead to internet freedom living on.

Sure Joe Blow Interweb may not be able to go to any site he wants or download pirated music and movies, he'll be subjected to the whims of his keepers. But the computer geeks, the hackers, crackers, cryptos and everyone else will be constantly attacking the battlements of authority and conformity just as they have for the past 20-30 years or more.

Remember the Burma riots a few months back? Their internet is censored and yet we had the live riot blogs being run by people who know what they're doing.

Hell, maybe network filtering will filter out the fourteen year olds who like to troll message boards and start pointless arguments with people.

reply to post by stumason

---

It can't be that hard. ISPs like mine could do the filtering at the CO, distributing the load significantly. Then they could watch for connections to known P2P ports. For mp3s they could sniff for ID3 data. Not sure for video. I'd imagine all outbound traffic to undesirable ports would be routed through a separate system for mining. Web traffic would be the easiest to monitor.

There is nothing wrong with filtering copyrighted material, and you don't have to turn the whole thing into a strawman scenerio either.









Silly silly boys and girls.

The ''end of the freedom of speech & information" only arrives if they decide to filter that ''information & freedom".

I wouldn't call copyrighted COMMERCIAL products that one is supposed to pay for, very ''freedom of speechy'', if a ISP blocks you from downloading that product for free.

Of course there IS *potential* that they make this some kind of crazy unfair filter, but until that time, there's nothing to worry about.

Except for your warez, of course.

[edit on 10/1/08 by -0mega-]

There will ALWAYS be ways around filters, blocklists, sniffers etc ad infinatum. Just as every form of copy protection only lasts a few days, every form of censorship has a route around, or shortly will.
I predict very soon (if not already in the works) a subnetwork of encrypted point to point data through anonymous nodes.
There is one system I will not mention for fear of violating some TOS or other, that is currently in operation, but some of the major nodes appear to have been compromised, as they are in places such as DC, Denver, Sacramento, Los Angeles in the US, and known foreign government IP addies. The tech savvy can route around these if they have a list.

I would hope some second or third world country has the desire to setup an encrypting anonymous network, maybe subscription based, and jump on this issue like they did for the domain addy issue.


I fear that shortly, some news story will break concerning "A terrorist cell/network/group has gained valuable intel using an anonymous (or encrypted) protocol that enabled them to (place your fears here)."

Thus passes the internet as we know it. R.I.P.

Woohoo! I just checked and I'm not actually under contract!

You hear that AT&T!? I'll bend over for you but just so you can sniff my rectum!! If you had just followed the ethical code-of-conduct for Internet service providers you'd still have my business. But you had to go and break the rule of providing unfettered unregulated and unbinding network connectivity. Cya!

reply to post by biggie smalls

---

He knowingly based a story on a forged document to try and influence an election. How is that right? Do you believe that should be allowed in the media. To knowingly lie and try to influence elections I mean. How is that any different or worse than cheating on a vote count. Just because people don't like Bush should not make them say its OK for the Media to fabricate stories.



He's just an arrogant money grubber trying to get even with the people who caught him lying. He got caught only once but you can be sure he fabricated many stories without getting caught. Liars don't just start lying all of the sudden. Shades of the New York Times


I'm not sure I'm willing to stand up for thieves either. Stealing is stealing. If you want to get mad; get mad at those who are doing the stealing. Thieves suck in my opinion.

I'm the operations manager for a small rural ISP. While responsible for all technical aspects of the company, I'm willing to bet that MANY IF NOT ALL INDEPENDENT ISPs would never do this unless they are forced to- for a few reasons:
1: Cost. Such a monitoring/capturing system would require equipment that would have to analyze the data in EVERY packet passing through the network, which would require enormous processing power- which multiplies by how much bandwidth an ISP currently operates. Additionally, such a device or operating code would require software (and probably hardware) certification and licensing- an unknown and scary prospect.
2: Customer Loyalty. Most customers of independent ISP's choose the small business atmosphere and friendly, personal local service most independent ISP's provide. As an ISP (this SHOULD go for every ISP), it is not our moral, economic, ethical, or spiritual responsibility to ensure that every packet of information passing through our network has been deemed worthy for inspection by 'the committee' on the other end of the line. Would it hold up in court for the phone company getting charged for harboring a network which was used to scheme and deploy the 9-11 attacks? I didn't think so.
3: Knowledge of their own product. I remember once reading this article about a safe-cracking/lock-picking championship where the contestants were pawing over each other to get a look at the 'new technological breakthru' in locks, and someone had the thing open by the end of the weekend. Security is a joke, and WAY overrated. If someone wants in, or wants what you've got, short of surgically attaching whatever it is to your noggin it's gone- and that goes for EVERYONE. Persistence has its way, and such a copyright filter would just anger the masses, cause more dissent towards the corporate entities, and just waste everyones time. Encryptions are a shorthand solution, however ANY encryption can be eventually sorted out. It just takes time- but it can be done. Or you just end up like the lady who was just charged $220,000 for downloading MP3's off Kazaa........

Enough from the business side- personally, I believe that musicians themselves need to evolve and start promoting themselves and offering their music solely online for download only- no wasteful CD material, just pure digital sound. They would receive more earnings than they do thru record deals, earn MY respect :~) as an entrepreneur, and I'd watch them laugh all the way to the bank while the corporate musician slaves bitch about losing the $2.50 per album they lost cause grandma downloaded Perry Como on Limewire. Checkout Ani Defranco, and especially Michael Franti- two fine examples of what i'm talking about. Power to the people!