AT&T considers filtering for pirated content
AT&T is considering using filtering technology to stop pirated content from traversing its network, according to a New York Times blog posted from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
According to the blog, James Cicconi, senior vice president, external and legal affairs for AT&T, said during a panel discussion Tuesday about digital piracy that the carrier is already discussing the possibility of using filtering technology with content companies like NBC Universal.

James Cicconi
"We are very interested in a technology-based solution, and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this," Cicconi said in the New York Times blog. "We recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies."
Filtering is already used on sites like YouTube and Microsoft's Soapbox to keep copyrighted videos from being shared illegally. But using this kind of technology on a much wider scale at the network level is controversial and has stirred up protest from some consumer groups.
A firestorm of protest ignited last year when cable operator Comcast was accused of filtering BitTorrent traffic. The company denied it was filtering traffic, but later admitted it "shapes" traffic to ensure that its network is not overwhelmed. Federal Communications Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday that an investigation will be launched to see if Comcast has violated any of the agency's policies.
Groups that oppose filtering say the Internet should be kept open or "neutral." They believe allowing carriers to look into packets flowing over their network to determine if they should be blocked or not is a dangerous practice that could eventually lead to abuses like censorship.
And maybe they are right. Just look at what happened this summer on AT&T's own video streaming Web site. During a Webcast of the Lollapalooza concert in Chicago, AT&T bleeped portions of the Pearl Jam song "Daughter," in which singer Eddie Vedder altered lyrics to include anti-Bush sentiments. Other bands had also been censored on AT&T's Webcasts, including the John Butler Trio and Flaming Lips. AT&T admitted that these remarks had been deleted, but the company said these were mistakes made by an overzealous contractor hired to monitor the performances for obscene language.
AT&T's Cicconi tried to quell fears of massive censorship or carrier snooping in a conversation with the New York Times reporter by saying: "Whatever we do has to pass muster with consumers and with policy standards. There is going to be a spotlight on it."
The debate over traffic filtering is likely to heat up this year, especially as there's an increase in technology that makes deep packet inspection possible. I'm going to dig a little deeper into this subject in an upcoming story, so stay tuned.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.




same thing. I knew there was a reason I wasn't an AT&T customer!
Anti-trust breakup. Trust reunited. Secret wire-taps. Illegal release of log files.
Why wouldn't we trust AT&T to filter content?
...and the very first time an AT&T customer gets caught downloading child porn onto his machine, AT&T's entire board needs to sit in the docket right next to the pedophile.
...the next spam anyone gets from a compromised AT&T customer's computer? Well, we can now report AT&T as a violator of the CAN-SPAM act.
If you're going to filter based on content, then you are at that point responsible for all content that travels to and from your customer base, whether you manage to catch it all or not. And no, no more safe harbor provision of the DMCA either, big guy... you decided to take responsibility for the content the moment you started filtering your customers based on content.
/P
If you use a Windows machine, then the Microsoft angle means that you can very readily be locked-out by way of integration with your OS's internal DRM that Windows would already have present in it (at least with Vista it's certain - XP doesn't have quite as much).
I'm sure that AT&T would almost have to have a mandatory "access" app for Mac users that would provide a similar lock-down, but w/ Linux I'm not sure about.
/P
In theory you could finger print the content and check where it's being downloaded from. If it is in the filters database and it is coming from Amazon's or Apple's servers for examples then it can be passed as likely to be legal.
I see many negatives but no gains. This is just a bit of smoke to make the RIAA happy. It will never happen.
I can see their rationale, given that the entertainment industry has been playing top to the technically naive Congress's bottom. But as the old "system of pipes" dogs die and retire off, this is going to change, which is to say nothing of the fact that a corporation-run government over the next four years is unlikely to say the least.
The only certainty is that the second someone thinking they are enjoying a level of privacy gets red-flagged and denied service, the word is going to spread quickly and customers will jump from AT&T in mass exodus.
No bandwith limitations like Comcast has. Comcast refused to disclose, AT&T flatout said I could use the 6mbps/1mbps connection to 100% 24/7 365 days a year and they wouldn't complain. So far that's been true.
AT&T starts filtering it'll be onto the next network that won't limit me or block my traffic. Even if that means paying for expensive high-grade business service lines.
--David Burt
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Support Net Neutrality....
A pirate, before the internet became what we know it to be, a pirate was someone who copied the content and sold it to make a peronal profit. The person who borrowed the content and copied it, or bought a pirated copy was not a pirate. Today, the people who download from pirates, who copy the content they borrow, are also labeled as pirates, incorrectly. The downloader may be pirating (i.e. redistributing illegally), but simply downloading for personal use is not pirating. It is not always fair use either. I will not deny the content owner looses a sale, and *that* is wrong in most cases.
Regardless, it is not the distributor's job to police the content. People will just use encryption to by-pass it. Yes, the kys is exchanged so ISPs can do a man in the middle attack, but there are ways around that as well.
- If at first....
-
by jelyse
January 13, 2008 1:33 PM PST
- AT&T couldn't sell the idea of the Information Highway as a toll road, so they'll build the toll booths now and hope to man them later....
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 23 Comments >>