If we’re going to be spied on, at least make it over something worthwhile
A while ago I wrote about AT&T’s plan to use filtering softeware to police their subscribers for illegal downloads of copyrighted material. Serious concerns have been raised about the technical efficacy of this technology, but I think that will be resolved pretty definitively at some point - either it will work or it won’t. The greater concern is the questions surrounding the policy itself, that is, the “peeking” at individual communications just on the chance that something illegal is going on. And more importantly, why should AT&T care about this particular illegal activity when the benefits all flow to commercial entities and the costs are all borne by the AT&T subscribers. In short, why am I, an mere internet customer, paying higher fees to support a technology that benefits an unrealted company? How can the stockholders of AT&T support this action? Other than the possible circumvention of exploratory lawsuits by the media companies against AT&T, I can’t off hand think of any benefit AT&T stockholders get out of this.
As for the policy, if AT&T is going to spend any money at all trying to prevent criminal activity, why didn’t they pick something more compelling, like drug trafficking or terrorism? If they will be peeking into customer communications, they could peek at words and groups of words identified as possibly associated with certain criminal activities, and then simply block communications that use those words. Why not be on the look out for murder for hire schemes, for con games, and teenage vandalism sprees?
Leave a Reply