News Is AT&T Complicit in Government Email Surveillance?

[Evo]

What does AT&T's user agreement say on this matter? If they are going to reserve the right to read and emails coming through their servers and share them with law enforcement agencies (they probably do anyway, to catch spammers and other abusers of their services), they would need to say this in their user agreement when you sign up for the service. It probably does say it, and probably most people never bother to read the fine print. If it applies more broadly, and isn't part of the user agreement with the provider, then that's something that would concern me as a Constitutional issue. If it is something only applying to AT&T customers, but not specified in their user agreement, then it would be a contractual issue between them and their customers.

From the member agreement

"b. Monitoring and Removal of Content. AT&T does not pre-screen Content, but AT&T and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) to monitor any and all traffic routed though the Service, and in their sole discretion to refuse, block, move or remove any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, we shall have the right to remove any Content that violates this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by us or submitted to us.

c. Investigation of Unlawful Conduct. AT&T cooperates fully with federal and state enforcement officials investigating unlawful behavior on AT&T Worldnet Service's system, and members are required to do the same. You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: 1) comply with legal process; 2) enforce this Agreement; 3) respond to claims that any Content violates the rights of third-parties; or 4) protect the rights, property or personal safety of AT&T, its users and the public."

 

[denverdoc]

I'm not a lawyer, but even clause c) IMO cannot be reasonably interpreted to give wholesale right for gov't tracking. I suppose under c-4, one could construe such permission was given in the first place, but a real stretch.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First of all, one can have all of the illegal clauses desired, but that doesn't make them legal or binding, so the statement alone is not proof of legality. Beyond that, the basic argument is that this is not a lawful investigation into unlawful activitives. Rather, it is a random, illegal search. I fault AT&T, potentially, for complicity in an illegal abuse of power, but the real offenders are [potentially] the NSA and whoever approved the operation.

The fact that AT&T employees have access to emails does not imply that all emails are randomly searched for hints of illegal activity. In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.

 

[Hurkyl]

In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.

Maybe there's just a semantic conflict here... but data mining doesn't scrutinize: the point of data mining is to find the things that ought to be scrutinized.

 

[denverdoc]

First of all, one can have all of the illegal clauses desired, but that doesn't make them legal or binding, so the statement alone is not proof of legality. Beyond that, the basic argument is that this is not a lawful investigation into unlawful activitives. Rather, it is a random, illegal search. I fault AT&T, potentially, for complicity in an illegal abuse of power, but the real offenders are [potentially] the NSA and whoever approved the operation.

The fact that AT&T employees have access to emails does not imply that all emails are randomly searched for hints of illegal activity. In fact, the expectation would be that a very very small percentage, perhaps a fraction of a percent, would ever be subject to scrutiny. In no way does data mining conform to this expectation.

Ivan,

Sure whether these things carry weight is always arguable. What gets my bowels in an uproar is that I regularly communicate with friends and fellow amateur rocketry buffs about propellant compositions, potential methods of guidance, etc and that has got to have me on at least a few lists via keyword inclusions. Add to it that I'm an outspoken critic of the current administration, subscribe to Democracy Now, etc, and have been filmed at various anti-war protests.

At this point, I doubt anyone is really paying that much attention, but my parents were on a couple of lists for no greater sin than being Common Cause members during the Nixon admin. But say, if I decided to look at matters first hand, and visit the middle east, and fell in love while there with a Syrian physicist, I have no illusions that my life would get turned upside down in a hurry. Maybe just a polite shakedown, but who knows anymore? A free jetliner ride to god knows where? Thats the slippery slope.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe there's just a semantic conflict here... but data mining doesn't scrutinize: the point of data mining is to find the things that ought to be scrutinized.

Perhaps I should have said examined, or analyzed. In any event it is a search.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan,

Sure whether these things carry weight is always arguable. What gets my bowels in an uproar is that I regularly communicate with friends and fellow amateur rocketry buffs about propellant compositions, potential methods of guidance, etc and that has got to have me on at least a few lists via keyword inclusions. Add to it that I'm an outspoken critic of the current administration, subscribe to Democracy Now, etc, and have been filmed at various anti-war protests.

At this point, I doubt anyone is really paying that much attention, but my parents were on a couple of lists for no greater sin than being Common Cause members during the Nixon admin. But say, if I decided to look at matters first hand, and visit the middle east, and fell in love while there with a Syrian physicist, I have no illusions that my life would get turned upside down in a hurry. Maybe just a polite shakedown, but who knows anymore? A free jetliner ride to god knows where? Thats the slippery slope.

Given the power to randomly investigate or analyze everyone's activities, the opportunities for abuse of power are virtually unlimited. As you know, this is one reason that we require judicial oversight for such investigations.

If we start sacrificing Constitutional protections to this degree, the terrorists have achieved a victory that far exceeds what they might have hoped for.

A few guys with box knives and so much for the blood of patriots…? We are willing to send our soldiers to fight and die for Iraq, but we run and hide, and throw out that which soldiers are sworn to protect with their lives, the Constitution?

 

[Evo]

Seriously, use PGP if you are worried. I know a lot of people that use it, not because they have anything to worry about, they're just paranoid. It makes them feel better. It's a great program.

 

[Anttech]

You don't understand peering do you?

BGP won't work if a physical connection is shut off and there is no connection for that ISP. Why do you think the customers lost internet access? Why do you think AOL had to negotiate another provider for the Roadrunner customers connected through Cogent?

I have been looking through all the IXP and it seems America has no where near the amount of Europe probably because u are 1 country and we are many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point

Anyway this puts weight behind my argument that the internet wouldn't be crippled if a large teleco pulled out, as there would be redundancy. Only providers that attach directly to that teleco and no other maybe, ie total dependends. Luck the internet backbone design and administration was not ill conceived.

Now DNS that's another problem (waiting to happen) all together.

 

[chemisttree]

From the member agreement

"b. Monitoring and Removal of Content. AT&T does not pre-screen Content, but AT&T and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) to monitor any and all traffic routed though the Service, and in their sole discretion to refuse, block, move or remove any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, we shall have the right to remove any Content that violates this Agreement or is otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content. In this regard, you acknowledge that you may not rely on any Content created by us or submitted to us.

c. Investigation of Unlawful Conduct. AT&T cooperates fully with federal and state enforcement officials investigating unlawful behavior on AT&T Worldnet Service's system, and members are required to do the same. You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: 1) comply with legal process; 2) enforce this Agreement; 3) respond to claims that any Content violates the rights of third-parties; or 4) protect the rights, property or personal safety of AT&T, its users and the public."

Sounds like this settles it... unless you think that giving someone the right to investigate unlawful conduct isn't the same as letting someone actually investigate unlawful conduct. (You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content...)

Sounds to me like AT&T is saying "Anything you type can be used against you in a court of law..."

 

[Evo]

Sounds like this settles it... unless you think that giving someone the right to investigate unlawful conduct isn't the same as letting someone actually investigate unlawful conduct. (You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content...)

Sounds to me like AT&T is saying "Anything you type can be used against you in a court of law..."

I believe it's pretty typical of the agreements of any large ISP. By large, I mean having several million customers.

 

[denverdoc]

Sounds like this settles it... unless you think that giving someone the right to investigate unlawful conduct isn't the same as letting someone actually investigate unlawful conduct. (You acknowledge and agree that AT&T Worldnet Service may preserve Content and may disclose Content...)

Sounds to me like AT&T is saying "Anything you type can be used against you in a court of law..."

Certainly doesn't strike me as anywhere so close to black and white. This refers to the investigation of unlawful behavior. Dissent is still considered a right here, as is the pursuit of various religious, scholarly and recreational pursuits. I guess I'm asking the question, whether it can be legally used against you in the court of law. In a way, it gets back to the issue of racial profiling. If the only reason you were stopped in the first place was based on the fact you were headed North from the Mexican border in a jalopy, the 100 #s of dope they found in the two back tires, isn't admissable evidence.