4 ms·

AT&T Says It May Soon Charge You Extra for Privacy

33 points by phr4ts 9y ago

wand3r 9y ago
Cable & Mobile Business Plan --- - Use taxpayer money to build network - demand to be a monopoly - make gov. also install infrastructure on all public projects - underinvest in infrastructure and simply degrade service as needed - create extremely complex billing and cost structure - (if cable company) also sell advertising and charge networks - aggregate customer data. Ignore above point, if not cable company inject tracking directly. Make huge profit, pay slightly >1 million as a joke after caught. - destroy net neutrality and charge on both sides of equation - spy on your customers and leverage the data for profit directly and sell it on open market - if user is privacy centric, do same as above but charge more So in summary, charge 4 different entities for the same single service and include extra fees to everyone for the service you already sold them. It would be like if you were a fruit salesman. - government subsidizes farm - charge farmer to sell fruit - eliminate all competing fruit stands - sell fruit for profit - charge extra for providing 4 bananas to someone who bought 4 bananas - charge extra for unspoiled fruit without insects
- bdhdhdud6737 9y ago
  But muh free markets! How can I grift if I'm not free to do so!
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
It's not "AT&T" doing this. It's their executives and shareholders - people with names and addresses. Don't pressure AT&T to change, you will never succeed - pressure it's key people. Do not let them hide behind their corporation.
- convolvatron 9y ago
  does anyone really believe that companies, their boards and their institutional shareholders in general apply a higher moral standard than maximizing returns? or that they could be shamed into doing so? regulation
  - DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    If they were booed and egged any time they showed their faces in public, perhaps. But regulation and breakup of (near) monopolies should definitely also be applied, yes.
Spivak 9y ago
I suppose all bets are off with the FCC now, but wasn't 'pay for privacy' explicitly forbidden a while back?
temp9876789 9y ago
Why isn't this a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 "except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks."

33 points by phr4ts 9y ago

Cable & Mobile Business Plan --- - Use taxpayer money to build network - demand to be a monopoly - make gov. also install infrastructure on all public projects - underinvest in infrastructure and simply degrade service as needed - create extremely complex billing and cost structure - (if cable company) also sell advertising and charge networks - aggregate customer data. Ignore above point, if not cable company inject tracking directly. Make huge profit, pay slightly >1 million as a joke after caught. - destroy net neutrality and charge on both sides of equation - spy on your customers and leverage the data for profit directly and sell it on open market - if user is privacy centric, do same as above but charge more So in summary, charge 4 different entities for the same single service and include extra fees to everyone for the service you already sold them. It would be like if you were a fruit salesman. - government subsidizes farm - charge farmer to sell fruit - eliminate all competing fruit stands - sell fruit for profit - charge extra for providing 4 bananas to someone who bought 4 bananas - charge extra for unspoiled fruit without insects

bdhdhdud6737 9y ago
But muh free markets! How can I grift if I'm not free to do so!

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

It's not "AT&T" doing this. It's their executives and shareholders - people with names and addresses. Don't pressure AT&T to change, you will never succeed - pressure it's key people. Do not let them hide behind their corporation.

convolvatron 9y ago
does anyone really believe that companies, their boards and their institutional shareholders in general apply a higher moral standard than maximizing returns? or that they could be shamed into doing so? regulation
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  If they were booed and egged any time they showed their faces in public, perhaps. But regulation and breakup of (near) monopolies should definitely also be applied, yes.

Spivak 9y ago

I suppose all bets are off with the FCC now, but wasn't 'pay for privacy' explicitly forbidden a while back?

temp9876789 9y ago

Why isn't this a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511 "except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks."