Joel Johnson Hijacks AT&T Funded Show To Question Internet Filtering Plans
Talking About AT&T's Internet Filtering on AT&T's The Hugh Thompson Show [Boing Boing Gadgets]
This is a test using rich text formatting and html links. It's the generic "company" ad that should appear on all posts with the Company category if they don't have an ad attached to a specific company.
Post a comment
Comments:
That was awesome!
Oh thats rich. Would have been even better if instead of "Hold please" you heard Randall Stevenson's voice booming out "Johnson! You'll never work in this town again!!!"
Or some such...
Nothing surprising here. AT&T is looking to censor yet AGAIN...
I don't think that ISPs should be held liable for what is being sent over their lines, but I definitely believe they shouldn't be filtering and snooping like this either.
Between actions like from AT&T and Time Warner putting up ridiculous caps, some entrepreneur that offers an uninfringed service could do very well for themselves.
I for one welcome our new Blue and White Ball overlords....
Between actions like from AT&T and Time Warner putting up ridiculous caps, some entrepreneur that offers an uninfringed service could do very well for themselves.
Do you really believe that? For one thing, bandwidth isn't that cheap, and I also doubt there is really a market for it. The average broadband user isn't you or I. Geek-oriented ISPs like SpeakEasy aren't particularly cheap, if that counts.
@goller321:We can use my grandpa's barn. C'mon kids, we'll save privacy by puttin' on our own Internets!
@DallasDMD: Bandwidth is actually cheaper than ever. I have had static IPs with high-speed internet at home since ISDN was the only option. DSL and cable are much, much cheaper now for the amount of bandwidth received than they (or any other solution) have been, dare I say, ever.
@phrygian:
Yeah, bandwidth is cheap. The SLA's and other stuff that keeps your connection up isn't. That's why a 1.5/1.5 T1 connection is still around $400/mo. You're paying for the SLA.
@goller321: In fact, I think the issue is that they shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they want to maintain their immunity to what customers transmit and receive on their networks, they need to avoid snooping. If they're spying on the traffic, then suddenly it's reasonable that they COULD be held liable for what a customer sends or receives on their network, because they "should have known."
Stick it to the Man, Joel, stick it to the Man. That guy has HUGE kahones. I love the way the audience agrees with him. WELL DONE!
Awesomeness, Joel! Well done!
Would've suited AT&T better to just let him continue. The 12 people that watch this online show may not have cared, but now this is all over the internets and far more people will see it.
They let him leave because they were afraid he would shut off all their monitors.
"Ma Bell has got the ill Communication."
love the intro music lol
@GearheadGeek: Exactly what I was thinking. I don't understand how this is in AT&Ts best interest, unless there is some confederation with RIAA/MPAA behind the scenes.
The bandwidth/equipment cost argument is pretty moot when the equipment cost and massive latency this kind of snooping would cost.
However, given the increased use of the Carnivore program, this may simply AT&T's proactive copy of the information they are already distributing to federal agencies.
Read wikipedia's article on the ECHELON program then come over to my place for a viewing of the Bourne Ultimatum. It's like Dorothy and the Dark Side of the Moon.
Video's down. C+D from ATT no doubt.
The guy's from boing boing, so the direction of the interview shouldn't have surprised anyone, least of all the people who hired him. And you know, when traditional media loses its drive to report on what's really going on, we've got the internet to step up and deliver. Free market, baby!
What's wrong with Hugh Thompson? He moves and talks like he has Tourette's or Parkinson's...?
Ma Bell don't like your kind here.