#1 2007-10-12 16:55:02
Now, when they come calling on a keyword search for that title, we can say they told us so:
Earlier I wrote about AT&T's new terms of service, in which section 5.1 (Suspension/Termination), clause (c) gave them the right to terminate your service for conduct that AT&T believed:
(c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
In other words, being critical of them. After being blasted soundly around the Internet, AT&T has reworded section 5.1 of their terms of service. There is no clause (c), and at the start of the section it says:AT&T respects freedom of expression and believes it is a foundation of our free society to express differing points of view. AT&T will not terminate, disconnect or suspend service because of the views you or we express on public policy matters, political issues or political campaigns.
And to think, I worried when I wasn't complimentary and was still working for one of their subsidiaries at the time. "Oh, you mean your adult daughter is blind and mildly retarded, so you can't quite understand how our Sales department slammed her with a Bundled Internet/Phone package? Yeah, I think I can appreciate that..."
Offline
#2 2007-10-12 18:12:34
Offline
#3 2007-10-12 18:30:14
What's with this "we" shit?
Offline
#4 2007-10-13 08:44:53
pALEPHx wrote:
What's with this "we" shit?
You've got me. I understood exactly what was said in the original post. Of course, I always find such moves by either large companies or the government to be quite interesting myself. Fortunately, we don't have to deal with AT&T out this way (And, as you may recall, Qwest was the only major communications company to tell the NSA to - Basically - go fuck themselves, and not to come back unless they had a warrant).
Offline
#5 2007-10-13 15:21:23
Decadence wrote:
(And, as you may recall, Qwest was the only major communications company to tell the NSA to - Basically - go fuck themselves, and not to come back unless they had a warrant).
They got royally screwed for it too.
Offline
#6 2007-10-13 18:03:47
"Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said: 'It's inappropriate for the government to be awarding a contract conditioned upon an agreement to an illegal program. That truly is what's going on here.'
The foundation has sued AT&T, charging that it violated privacy laws by cooperating with the government's warrantless surveillance program."
Good for them. The EFF is like an ACLU that's kept up with the times a lot better.
Offline
