[Infowarrior] - The Dark Side of Apple ¹ s iPhone

[Richard Forno]

The Dark Side of Apple¹s iPhone

>From TV Technology, July 25, 2007
By Frank Beacham
http://www.freepress.net/news/24948

If you¹re like me, you¹re probably sick of hearing about Apple¹s iPhone.
Yet, what¹s missing from all the celebratory news coverage is the dark
controversy brewing under the hood of the nation¹s latest glamour phone.

The controversy involves a very real threat to ³net neutrality.² It was
spawned from a remarkable statement made by a top executive at AT&T, the
telco that has exclusive network rights to the iPhone.

The executive, James W. Cicconi, revealed that AT&T would become the first
Internet provider to monitor its networks for perceived misuse of
copyright-protected films, television, music and other media.

This is a major policy shift, especially coming from the largest provider of
both local and long distance services, wireless service, and DSL Internet
access in the United States. Previously, network operators have remained
neutral to the nature of the content delivered over their networks.

This scenario is a bit like Ma Bell listening in and shutting down a phone
call if one of the parties uses an obscenity, or God forbid, plays part of a
commercial recording to a friend over the line. Make no mistake about it;
this is brave new territory for a telco.

Cicconi, a senior vice president at AT&T, told the Los Angeles Times that
since his company is now moving into the pay-television business, its
interests are now more closely aligned with those of Hollywood¹s studios.

What was left unsaid was any concern that Cicconi might have for the privacy
of AT&T¹s customers.

To fully comprehend the implications of this development, a little history
lesson is in order.

FLASHBACK

Remember late last year when AT&T, as a condition of allowing its $86
billion merger with BellSouth, promised the FCC that it would abide by ³net
neutrality² principles for a period of two years?

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet users should be able
to access any Web content they choose and use any applications they choose,
without restrictions or limitations imposed by their network service
provider. That means the operator of the network should have no preferred
business relationships that favors certain Web sites.

My, oh my, how time flies‹and along with it good intentions. AT&T¹s move,
under the guise of copyright protection, could serve to bypass net
neutrality altogether. How? By blocking access through filters to Internet
destinations throughout the world where AT&T and its partners deem the
content to be illegal.

Harold Feld, senior vice president of the Media Access Project told Josh
Silver, a writer for the Huffington Post and executive director of Free
Press, a national, nonpartisan organization, that AT&T is creating a charade
to mask its real intentions.

³This has no more to do with Œstopping piracy¹ than the NSA surveillance
program under which AT&T spied on Americans was about Œnational security,¹²
Feld said. ³This is about entrenched interests using the rhetoric of law
enforcement to erode essential freedoms.²

Using filtering to block specific Web sites has a history of harming
innocent victims. In 2003, the Center for Democracy and Tech-nology
successfully overturned a Pennsylvania law that required ISPs to block
overseas child pornography sites, partly on the grounds that the filtering
included many third-party Web sites as collateral damage.

Feld noted that copyright holders already have numerous mechanisms available
to them under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. ³If they feel their
rights are infringed by carriers, they can sue‹as Viacom has sued YouTube,²
he said.

However, as Silver also pointed out, AT&T¹s plan to monitor its networks is
not about piracy, but about controlling video programming and discriminating
against content on the Web. ³Remember how the big phone companies tried to
dismiss net neutrality as a Œsolution in search of a problem?¹ Well, here¹s
the problem,² he wrote.

So, exactly what does AT&T propose to do? That¹s another part of the mystery
since they are not saying. Cicconi said only that the telco had started
working with studios and record companies to develop anti-piracy technology
that would target the most frequent offenders.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital media rights group, called
AT&T¹s technology ³pure vaporware,² noting that on the surface that the
telco¹s action might look reasonable ³but problems arise once you start to
ask hard questions about exactly what AT&T is up to.²

Whatever technology AT&T deploys, said the EFF, it is bound to be some type
of filtering that haphazardly restricts legitimate, lawful traffic. ³The
AT&T Internet traffic cop appears poised to shoot first, and ask questions
about the impact on your civil liberties and ability to access lawful
content and applications later,² the EFF said in a statement.

A SECRET ROOM

As to Feld¹s comment about the NSA, here¹s a bit more history. Last year,
the EFF filed a class-action suit against AT&T accusing the telecom giant of
illegally helping the National Security Agency spy on millions of Americans.
The government has argued the case could expose state secrets.

However, as the case progresses, documents have been released describing a
secret, secure room in AT&T¹s facilities that gave the NSA direct access to
customers¹ e-mails and other Internet communications.

³This is critical evidence supporting our claim that AT&T is cooperating
with the NSA in the illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary
Americans,² said Cindy Cohn, the EFF¹s legal director. ³This surveillance is
under debate in Congress and across the nation, as well as in the courts.²

If all this sounds a bit like a spy thriller, add one more ingredient to the
mix. James W. Cicconi, the AT&T executive who told the LA Times of AT&T¹s
plans, has a most interesting background. Again, we¹ll quote directly from
the Huffington Post:

³Šconsider that Cicconi is the same guy who was the assistant to James Baker
in the Reagan Administration and staff secretary for Bush Sr. (and he sits
on the board of his presidential library). While at SBC (former name of
AT&T), he served on Dubya¹s White House transition team‹before handing
thousands of Americans¹ private phone records over to the Pentagon. And
under his leadership, SBC/AT&T broke more communications laws and rules‹and
paid more FCC fines‹than just about anybody.²

OK, what do we know and not know? That¹s the problem with this picture‹a big
lack of information and clarity. Unfortunately, the situation is much too
important to ignore when one takes into account the future of media.

All electronic media is migrating to the Internet. As these broadband
networks expand capacity to embrace video delivery, it is a huge issue as to
whether or not their owners are allowed to interfere with a subscriber¹s use
of or access to content on the network.

PANDORA¹S BOX

In my opinion, network owner/operators should not be allowed to control or
limit content access in any way. If a company owns or controls a network,
that company should have no financial interest whatsoever in the content
delivered on that network. Period.

Allowing corporations to own or sell content on their own network opens a
Pandora¹s box of public policy issues. Unfortunately, the cat is already out
of the bag. Where are the unbiased, unbought government regulators to set
the rules?

Mr. Cicconi¹s old boss, Ronald Reagan, used to say of the Soviets: ³Trust,
but verify.² Unfortunately, in today¹s corporate war to control new media,
trust is long ago out the window.

We¹ll be extremely lucky if we can get objective oversight to ³verify² that
the media conglomerates are playing by the rules.