
AT&T for Profit Spying - yclept
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/25/at-t-is-spying-on-americans-for-profit.html?via=desktop&source=Reddit
======
throwaway98237
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
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
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.

~~~
ctrl-j
> 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.

------
eth0up
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
Time Warner is a media company, Time Warner Cable is a cable company.

~~~
eth0up
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/)

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

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

~~~
schoen
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.

------
camelNotation
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).

------
upofadown
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.

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

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

