5 ms·

AT&T for Profit Spying

99 points by yclept 10y ago

throwaway98237 10y ago
People had to build this system. Many people. People had to operate this system. Many people. People had to keep this system a secret. Many people.
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  Are you tying to make a point to the people who deny these types of things are happening based on how many people would have to cover it up or be silent?
  - llamataboot 10y ago
    No, I think they are making the point that this isn't the result of a "few bad apples", but rather its a large industry, and its also an industry that requires a lot of engineers consciously and actively making the choice to build this type of infrastructure knowing full well what it will be used for.
    - benmcnelly 10y ago
      Thanks for clearing that up!
    - throwaway98237 10y ago
      Indeed.
    - ctrl-j 10y ago
      > this isn't the result of a "few bad apples", but rather its a large industry Just wanted to point out that the term is really "a few bad apples spoils the barrel" So a "few bad apples" in this case applies, and those apples are probably the executives in charge of the program. All the people involved who may not normally do morally questionable things, were "spoiled" because of the bad apples.
- eximius 10y ago
  This applies to so many things. Literally every industry is full of companies making choices that benefit the company over the employees at the very company. It is mind boggling the global conspiracy to improve the lives of the ephemeral entities we serve at the expense of our own.
eth0up 10y ago
641A is mentioned in the article, but here's the wiki link for those who might miss it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A Essential history, especially considering the prospective mutant ingurgitation of Time Warner.
- greenleafjacob 10y ago
  Time Warner is a media company, Time Warner Cable is a cable company.
  - eth0up 10y ago
    The feeding habits of such leviathan are relevant whatever they consume, whether coax or imax. I anticipate nothing good from ATT. Possibly of interest: https://www.alec.org/person/bill-leahy/ https://www.alec.org/person/bill-leahy/
upofadown 10y ago
This seems inefficient. Why not have a government entity representing enforcement/intelligence run the infrastructure directly? It would remove the deceit that presently exists. Everyone would explicitly know that the government was monitoring everything that went over the network. It would be clear that if we wanted to avoid such monitoring that we would have to do something special. As a bonus it could be set up to solve the last mile monopoly problem. That way all the money we pay for the current secret surveillance could actually do us some good.
- werdna123 10y ago
  "It would be clear that if we wanted to avoid such monitoring that we would have to do something special." Pretty sure the government would want to make that as opaque as possible
benmcnelly 10y ago
No Paywall here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26-years-of-phone-call-records-to-wage-war-on-drugs/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26-...
- schoen 10y ago
  That is reporting on Hemispheres when it was disclosed back in 2013; this article includes newly-reported information about the availability and use of the system.
markwaldron 10y ago
Does something like this break any contract I may have with AT&T?
camelNotation 10y ago
This is actually the better option when compared to a government agency spying on you. This exact design's been happening in banking for decades where banks are required to investigate and report on suspicious activities that take place within their walls (so to speak). The consequences of allowing fraud, money-laundering, etc. to go unreported is an extremely high federal fine. As a result, banks now have sophisticated monitoring and reporting systems to comply with those laws. It makes sense that communications companies would do the same and here's why: When you choose to pay a company like AT&T for their service, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that privacy comes with the realization that they always have access to your account and transmitted data. It's part of the contract you sign. If you are going to communicate through AT&T, they're going to interact with the communications you send, no matter what you do. However, they have a major incentive to keep those communications confidential: their brand. Companies need their brands to be solid, respected, and free of scandals. If they start violating our privacy, we're going to be upset and stop buying their products. They know this, otherwise they wouldn't be in business. It's like business 100-level stuff. So when a government request comes in, it's in their best interest to walk a line between compliance and privacy. They don't want to give up all consumer data due to the brand risk, but they also don't want to get fined. These competing motivations lead to the implementation of accurate surveillance systems, not dragnet style sweeps. The government, on the other hand, does not have a brand to protect or market competition to worry about. They can do whatever they want and get away with it because they can keep all their misdeeds secret, hidden even from the laws that are supposed to keep them in check. So for my money, I prefer a private company do this as opposed to a government agency. A private company is much more likely to follow the rules given by a regulatory agency (it protects them if we find out about stuff like the linked article) than a government agency is to follow the rules given by politicians in Congress (no one watches the watchers).
ComodoHacker 10y ago
Any chances Twitter is doing the same thing now, striving to be profitable?
- rhizome 10y ago
  The question on my mind is whether internet companies in the future will be required to do something like this.

99 points by yclept 10y ago

People had to build this system. Many people. People had to operate this system. Many people. People had to keep this system a secret. Many people.

benmcnelly 10y ago
Are you tying to make a point to the people who deny these types of things are happening based on how many people would have to cover it up or be silent?
- llamataboot 10y ago
  No, I think they are making the point that this isn't the result of a "few bad apples", but rather its a large industry, and its also an industry that requires a lot of engineers consciously and actively making the choice to build this type of infrastructure knowing full well what it will be used for.
  - benmcnelly 10y ago
    Thanks for clearing that up!
  - throwaway98237 10y ago
    Indeed.
  - ctrl-j 10y ago
    > this isn't the result of a "few bad apples", but rather its a large industry Just wanted to point out that the term is really "a few bad apples spoils the barrel" So a "few bad apples" in this case applies, and those apples are probably the executives in charge of the program. All the people involved who may not normally do morally questionable things, were "spoiled" because of the bad apples.
eximius 10y ago
This applies to so many things. Literally every industry is full of companies making choices that benefit the company over the employees at the very company. It is mind boggling the global conspiracy to improve the lives of the ephemeral entities we serve at the expense of our own.

eth0up 10y ago

641A is mentioned in the article, but here's the wiki link for those who might miss it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A Essential history, especially considering the prospective mutant ingurgitation of Time Warner.

greenleafjacob 10y ago
Time Warner is a media company, Time Warner Cable is a cable company.
- eth0up 10y ago
  The feeding habits of such leviathan are relevant whatever they consume, whether coax or imax. I anticipate nothing good from ATT. Possibly of interest: https://www.alec.org/person/bill-leahy/ https://www.alec.org/person/bill-leahy/

upofadown 10y ago

This seems inefficient. Why not have a government entity representing enforcement/intelligence run the infrastructure directly? It would remove the deceit that presently exists. Everyone would explicitly know that the government was monitoring everything that went over the network. It would be clear that if we wanted to avoid such monitoring that we would have to do something special. As a bonus it could be set up to solve the last mile monopoly problem. That way all the money we pay for the current secret surveillance could actually do us some good.

werdna123 10y ago
"It would be clear that if we wanted to avoid such monitoring that we would have to do something special." Pretty sure the government would want to make that as opaque as possible

benmcnelly 10y ago

No Paywall here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26-years-of-phone-call-records-to-wage-war-on-drugs/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26-...

schoen 10y ago
That is reporting on Hemispheres when it was disclosed back in 2013; this article includes newly-reported information about the availability and use of the system.

markwaldron 10y ago

Does something like this break any contract I may have with AT&T?

camelNotation 10y ago

This is actually the better option when compared to a government agency spying on you. This exact design's been happening in banking for decades where banks are required to investigate and report on suspicious activities that take place within their walls (so to speak). The consequences of allowing fraud, money-laundering, etc. to go unreported is an extremely high federal fine. As a result, banks now have sophisticated monitoring and reporting systems to comply with those laws. It makes sense that communications companies would do the same and here's why: When you choose to pay a company like AT&T for their service, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that privacy comes with the realization that they always have access to your account and transmitted data. It's part of the contract you sign. If you are going to communicate through AT&T, they're going to interact with the communications you send, no matter what you do. However, they have a major incentive to keep those communications confidential: their brand. Companies need their brands to be solid, respected, and free of scandals. If they start violating our privacy, we're going to be upset and stop buying their products. They know this, otherwise they wouldn't be in business. It's like business 100-level stuff. So when a government request comes in, it's in their best interest to walk a line between compliance and privacy. They don't want to give up all consumer data due to the brand risk, but they also don't want to get fined. These competing motivations lead to the implementation of accurate surveillance systems, not dragnet style sweeps. The government, on the other hand, does not have a brand to protect or market competition to worry about. They can do whatever they want and get away with it because they can keep all their misdeeds secret, hidden even from the laws that are supposed to keep them in check. So for my money, I prefer a private company do this as opposed to a government agency. A private company is much more likely to follow the rules given by a regulatory agency (it protects them if we find out about stuff like the linked article) than a government agency is to follow the rules given by politicians in Congress (no one watches the watchers).

ComodoHacker 10y ago

Any chances Twitter is doing the same thing now, striving to be profitable?

rhizome 10y ago
The question on my mind is whether internet companies in the future will be required to do something like this.