They already listen to our phones conversations, so I guess this is the next logical step....2007 going on 1984.

is packet sniffing even legal if they are only the backbone provider? should the privacy provisions in one's local provder prevent them from doing this?

It's crazy. It's as though the US Post Office declared that it would no longer send sealed letters. Post cards only. For OUR protection.

Except that, of course, the Post Office could never do that, since it's a public entity. Our system only allows private companies to rape us so completely.

AT&T is the new evil: how's THAT for a tagline?

Any ideas on how to screw AT&T out of money, customers, etc?

Well, this ought to cause a massive, fast migration to the use of encrypted packets. You didn't think MPAA/RIAA would actually do anything -smart-, did you?

Also AT&T doesn't own all the backbones... a huge amount of data still goes through Level3, Qwest, Sprint, etc. My connection to Consumerist goes through Sprint. No AT&T on any tracert.

AT&T should consider itself lucky that all copyright-infringing Internet traffic has the copyright-infringing bit set for easy identification!

Nice! Just one more reason not to use them, ever. For anything. iPhone or not, screw you (the new, but pretty much like the old as far as evilness goes) AT&T.

Thank God I'm Canadian, AT&T does not exist here. So watch me all you want, you can't get me :)

If they check everything that passes through their networks, won't it cause some serious backup in the tubes?

Att does not listen to phone calls. That is a violation of federal law. They do allow NSA to listen to phone calls which may or may not be a violation of federal law. Packet sniffing should be illegal, write or phone your congressional representative or state legislator.

AT&T will never be welcome in this household. This continuing antiprivacy-assupmtion-of-guilt campaign is getting beyond absurd. How soon before the only secure conversation is f2f in a Faraday cage. . . ?

The best step to take in this situation is to write a book:
101 Reasons Why Your Privacy is Safe Due to the US Constitution

I'm no expert on this corner of the law, but wouldn't this threaten their common carrier status? Or are you allowed to pick and choose what kind of data you're willing to consider "too illegal." Like, on a hypothetical AT&T-owned web hosting service, could they now be liable for kiddy porn placed there?

@trai_dep: "Any ideas on how to screw AT&T out of money, customers, etc?

Unfortunately my options are AT&T or Comcast locally. It's like being stuck on a desert island with Donald Trump, Star Jones, and a gun with one bullet.

isn't bit torrent able to encrypt its sharing?

if so how would they be able to tell what it was?

@BillyShears: You're probably right. We discussed this in my Entertainment Law class the other day, and its a possibility. The learned ignorance they have is what allows them to enjoy their Common Carrier status; if they actively engage in trying to control what's going on, they step from nonfeasance into malfeasance (when they eventually let someone's copyrighted stuff sneak through, or realize they can't do what they thought they could.)

I don't know what their counsel is thinking, but they probably have a bunch of them, instead of me who's still in law school. Perhaps they know something we don't?

Of course, the next logical step will be to deputize AT&T employees, who will then come into your house and personally check all your hard drives for copyrighted materials, and then maybe install a rootkit on every computer you own, just to make sure you don't stray from the path of enlightenment.

@ancientsociety: seems 1984 is already here... we're all guilty till proven innocent, you cannot live without the government's protection, and big business dictates your family values. face it people, we are cattle in a herd that only cares about eating, distraction, medication, fucking, bitching (like i'm doing now), and collecting more shit than the fucker next to us... the scenery has changed over the years, but fundamentally were still the same losers since the beginning.

I doubt that this will ever pass over....since this would require a massive ammount of computing power, and not to mention that it would interfere with the data itself.
It would be possible to sue ATT if they block something wrongly.

@calvinneal: "AT&T doesn't listen to phone calls... They allow NSA to listen."

Well that's a distinction without a difference. Thanks!

Just wait until CALEA is in place, then you will see some real snooping.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act]Link[/url]

@timmus:

Yes, exactly. As you go through Sprint, I go through the AOL backbone that is owned by Time Warner.

crap... here is the link

[en.wikipedia.org]

Hmmm... It's not ok for ATT to spy on the American people to find terrorists, but it is ok for them to spy on Americans for copyright material. Huh?

Did John Ashcroft go to work for AT&T?

Eh, I don't have AT&T... but what the fuck?
@trai_dep: indeed.

Let me switch ISPs! Oops...my small ISP was bought by a bigger company, which was bought by AT&T?

Y'know, if Consumerist wanted to start up its very own ISP...:D

@endless: Yes it can. As for how they can tell, I don't know, but I'm guessing we might start seeing 'your packet is encrypted, therefore you're doing something illegal' or possibly a repeat of the Clipper chip fiasco.

@angiol: I think we're going to see that along with, "The only reason why you'd be moving more than 2G of data in a month month is because you're doing something naughty."

I have AT&T - they bought sbcglobal which was only DSL option for me back in the day.

For last few months I've had an impossible time getting anything from file sharing sites.
Coincidence?

I do pass through ATT.net AND NTT.net.

@ Lula Mae Broadway

Same here, even sometimes downloading from legit sites. I think they cant cleary identify the contents rather are estimating using large file sizes.