4 ALARMER !! AT&T gives NSA your phone calls, e-mails, internet services

[killerbush]

In a stunning invasion of privacy, AT&T has given the NSA direct access to all your phone calls, all e-mail messages, either sent or received, and all the internet sites you've been on.

According to an AT&T whistleblower, Mark Klein, the NSA also received every single online text message, online video, or text chat you have visited, copies of photos you've downloaded, e-mailed or received, so that the governemnt can go through it all, and peek into your private life

This is the most disgusting, vile invasion of privacy that this administration has done. If you're a subscriber to AT&T, I suggest you get a hold of them, and ask them some serious questions.


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70619-0.html

This should send chills up and down your spine.

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Actually AT&T

Was recently purchased by SBC. I think SBC needs to hear from us.

[killerbush]

2. someone needs to hear from us!!!

:mad: :mad:

[file83]

21. I give you, AT&T's new logo....

"We're watching. We're listening. We're at&t 9000."

[low_phreaq]

27. There's also this one

Found it at the EFF page:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att

D'ya think Darth Cheney is in that Death Star somewhere?

[file83]

31. Man, that one's awesome. Do you mean, THIS Darth Cheney...

[Brigid]

35. Good One!

That's pretty good. Anybody else find themselves thinking of George Orwell far too often these days?

[Steve A Play]

4. Other way around!

AT&T purchased SBC. (Or so say their new commercials!) :)

[Grateful for Hope]

11. No, not true

SBC purchased AT&T...at least the purchase is in the works. I think the AT&T name will be preserved, however.

[montana500]

5. I thought AT&T just bought SBC

nm

[indie_voter]

7. SBC bought AT&T and changed their name to AT&T

For brand recognition.

D'OH!!!!

[Grateful for Hope]

12. Exactly! n/t

[Zan_of_Texas]

14. SBC bought AT&T and changed their name to AT&T - correct.

I am in SBC territory, and this is true.

[uppityperson]

17. I thought this Candorville cartoon was a joke, but it's real?

How about BellSouth?

[skooooo]

3. Americans aren't going to buy this for a second.

The fat's in the fire now.

[tuvor]

6. What's in the fine print of the agreement you sign with them?

They must have a clause on privacy. If they're violating it, it could mean a hell of a class-action suit.

[caligirl]

8. I called them, SBC is our provider and they merged with

the scumbags. I gave her the story and told her I will close me contract with them because of it. She is sending the story up to a supervisor with my complaints and plans to cancel service over it. She was shocked, she had no idea it was as bad as it appears to be or that they were still doing this.

We figure we can go with comcast for DSL and vonnage via the internet. We would be giving up our land line over this. But heck we have FOUR cell phones as it is.

[rucky]

18. Just make sure you have E-911 in your area.

if you get rid of your land line.

[caligirl]

32. Good point,we have a diabetic child! Thanks!!!

[Asgaya Dihi]

9. SBC/ATT

I dumped SBC just about a month and a half ago myself, made it clear by phone and email why I was doing so. We have a lower rate of access than any number of other modern nations and pay more for that poor access, and they are trying to tighten things up some more to see how much cash they can milk from us.

If people aren't already members, check out http://www.freepress.net/ and consider signing up for alerts when something big like this happens. If we don't say something, they won't stop.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. If they're doing it the other could be too.

[katinmn]

13. K&N. NSA datamining private domestic data.More of our tax dollars at work.

:grr:

[laugle]

15. Is there an alternative to AT&T for local phone service.

My SBC just changed to AT&T due to the merger.

I HAVE ALWAYS HATED AT&T and have dumped my cable and a credit card because of them. They are just the worst.

I've been meaning to check into an alternative for the local telephone calls.......anyone up on it??

[low_phreaq]

16. Yes, depending on where you live

I looked in my new AT&T/SBC phone book. Page 3 is "Telephone Provider Information". There are 5 alternatives to AT&T/SBC in my area that provide local residential service. Your mileage may vary.

[laugle]

22. Can you give me the names of the alternatives? Thanks! n/t

[low_phreaq]

23. OK

MCI, McLeodUSA, Sage Telecom, Talk America, and TDS Metrocom.

You might have some of these available if they are national companies, but not the ones that are local companies.

[laugle]

25. I think MCI is still here, I'll look into it--thanks! Welcome to DU!

[low_phreaq]

26. Thanks

Also, you might check with your local public utilities commission. I think they also require the main phone company to list the alternative ones somewhere in the first few pages of your phone book. Mine even has the phone numbers for all of them listed.

[RoyGBiv]

28. FYI ...

When you're shopping around, ask, up front, whether the company you contact is a re-seller company. Also ask if it maintains its own network.

[laugle]

33. What does re-seller company and maintaining their own network mean?

[RoyGBiv]

36. Re-seller, etc ...

A lot of small companies have sprung up that aren't really anything but sales agents for larger companies. It's sorta like a franchise only without the name borrowing. The relationship is more complex than that sounds, but what is important for the consumer to know is that when you get phone service from one of these companies, you may get a bill from them, but you're actually using the phone service of that larger company, and in this context, you're not making yourself better off.

For example there's a local company that has small storefront shops all over the city that caters to low-income consumers with credit problems and no bank accounts. If you get phone service with them, what you're actually getting is phone service with SBC/ATT, but you get your bill from this other company who then pays SBC/ATT minus what is essentially a commission on the sale. It's good for SBC/ATT because they don't run any risk; they're getting paid regardless, and they don't have to maintain storefronts for people without bank accounts to pay bills. It's good for the third party company because, even though they shoulder the risk involved, they get a lot of customers that can't go to SBC/ATT due to bad debts or who can't afford the enormous deposits required, and the customers have nowhere else to go. They structure their services around monthly payments that tend to be lower than what you get with SBC/ATT but that includes a bunch of relatively small fees that make them a profit.

The point is that if you're trying to get away from SBC/ATT due to privacy issues, you're not going to do it if you end up with one of these companies.

As far as maintaining their own network, even companies that are independent from companies like SBC/ATT end up using their network to provide service in certain areas, which means your voice/data traffic is going to go through SBC/ATT lines at some point and possibly end up directed to the spy-bucket anyway. Several companies have spent the last decade building their own networks to avoid paying the large phone companies various fees, and these are currently safer to use since most of them have so far resisted NSA involvement. The latter are largely cable companies that have branched into providing phone service.

[steelyboo]

38. It might be good for the CLECs, but its not good for the RBOCs

I work for Bellsouth, and I can tell you that SBC is not getting a good deal in this as you state. SBC (the RBOC) has to lease that line to the third party (CLEC) at a rate BELOW what it costs to actually run the line, all thanks to the Telecom Act of 1996. The idea was to allow these CLECs time to build their own facilities so that they could compete on a level playing field with the RBOCs, since they had a 70+ year monopoly. But, business whores being business whores, all the CLECs have done is continue to take advantage of this windfall from the government. None of them build facilities.

Otherwise, yes, they link up through the same networks. Even your Cable companies with their own facilities still have to use the phone network, if anything they use the main system as backup during power or cable outages.

I don't doubt that SBC is handing stuff over to the NSA, just wanted to clarify this stuff.

[RoyGBiv]

45. I understand what you're saying ...

I agree to an extent, but only to an extent. The economics of the situation is more complicated than you state. To be fair, it's more complicated than I stated as well. In essence some of this boils down to how one defines things in accounting terms. I have seen the documents from SBC, filed with the state Corporation Commission, that claim they lose money due to being forced to lease the line "below cost." I have seen documents filed in rebuttal that do the math differently and show that SBC is not losing money on these lines, rather is defining "cost" inaccurately.

You're also only partly correct about the cable companies. Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox have all been building their own networks over the past several years. (Others may, but those are the ones about which I have personal knowledge.) In some markets, cable companies' voice networks have matured to a point that they utilize none of the traditional phone company's lines except, in some places, the lines within the residence, but that is changing too. Naturally for the cable voice customers to be able to communicate with SBC customers, the networks connect, but that's a somewhat different matter. As an example of this in practice, after a tornado did damage in OKC a couple years ago, all SBC customers in the area affected were without phone service for 1-3 days. Cable company customers never lost service, except that they couldn't call people who were SBC customers.

In any case, thanks for the additional comments. My explanation was too simplistic, as is this, but I fear boring most people to death with the fine details.

[laugle]

44. Thanks for the info. I'll ask if they are affiliated with AT&T but

you know they will probably lie....companies are sooooo unscrupulous now a days there always seems to be something they don't disclose.

[wordpix2]

41. see my post #40---glad you asked this q

[wordpix2]

42. it used to be SBC had a monopoly on local calls in CT but don't know if

that's transferred to AT&T now

[bee]

19. now we'll see how the R's who defended the spying really feel.

this is insanity. pure & simple. :nuke:

[bee]

20. delete. dupe

[Maraya1969]

24. I think I'm going to forward all my mass emails to the NSA to save

them some time. In case anyone feels so inclined I have included their phone and email address.

If you have a general inquiry, contact Public and Media Affairs at 301-688-6524 or send e-mail to [e-mail]

[question everything]

29. How does AT&T know my emails and Internet sites?

We use them only for long distance calls.

Several years ago AT&T also provided cable service under ATT Broadband Internet but that service was sold to Comcast.

[Breeze54]

30. AT&T and SBC...What a "great" deal.....NOT!!!!!

Jeebus Craps!!!!
I hate that bunch! Incredulous!!
:mad:

http://att.sbc.com/gen/landing-pages?pid=3308

Welcome to the new AT&T.
SBC and AT&T have come together online so that you can
continue to manage your accounts and learn about products
and services that matter most in your world.
Learn more about the new AT&T....and they'll learn more about YOU!!!:sarcasm:

http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html

[laugle]

34. Gee I wanted to print your poster--I thought it was Bush! Isn't

Ashcroft long gone.....I don't get it...time for a re-do!

[Breeze54]

37. ummm...

Ashcroft was a key supporter of the 2001 USA Patriot Act,
and he defended the act's use since inception.

http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/NEWS01/604060310/1008

Ashcroft hosted at Miami University, speaks of Sept. 11
By Allison Kolodziej
Originally published April 6, 2006
For the Palladium-Item

Snip-->
Ashcroft shared the efforts he made to heed the president's warning during a speech
at Miami University on Wednesday night. He served as attorney general to President
Bush from January 2001 to February 2005.
In a speech titled "Leadership in Challenging Times," Ashcroft outlined the changes
made to ensure national security and combat terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11.
One change involved setting the prevention of terrorist actions as a priority over
prosecution. "Prosecution looks back on past events," he said.
"Prosecution recreates the past for the purpose of the imposition of penalty."
Prevention and gathering information, however, anticipates the future.
"Information is the best friend of prevention," he said.
Another priority, Ashcroft said, was to converge the work of organizations that gathered
national security information. "One of the things we needed to do with the intelligence
operation was integrate it more with the law enforcement operation," he said.
Ashcroft was a key supporter of the 2001 USA Patriot Act, and he defended the act's use
since inception.
"There's been a lot of discussion about the Patriot Act -- a lot of debate," he said.
However, "to date, there haven't been any indications of Patriot Act abuse." <--Snip
more at link....
~~~~~~~~~
Now do you get it??
:shrug:

[killerbush]

39. Ashcroft was a dirty rotten sneak as well

No difference between Ashcroft, and the current jackass Gonzalez

[laugle]

43. Sure I get it! But he's still gone! I think Gonzales

is the more dangerous one at this time.

Hell, Bush breaks every law he chooses and Gonzales finds a way to make it legal.

Torture, wiretapping, e-mails, leaking classified info, sneak and peek, declaring US citizens "enemy combatants" with no legal representation, you know the rest.

Gonzales is much worst!

I like your poster, can you do one with Gonzales and I will hang it in my window? Thanks.

[wordpix2]

40. my story about AT&T: I called recently b/c AT&T is now my phone co.

I wanted to change my service to one where I get LD calls throughout the US for 7 cents a min. I placed my change of service over the phone and it was no hassle and easily done.

Imagine my surpirse when I opened my next bill and found my LD calls listed for an astronomical amount based on all kinds of strange charges from .25-.40 per minute! Needless to say, I called AT&T and asked what the hell happened here. The person on the other end said a mistake had been made in the order and it would be changed to the .07/min. I asked how could this have happened? And I pointed out that this mistake wasn't a simple mistake such as .07/min. changed to .70/min. but the charges were all over the place, for all kinds of different amounts per minute making absolutely no sense and having no cost basis whatsoever. The operator had no explanation and kept saying it's just a mistake and it will be corrected.

So, I am not surprised AT&T is giving out our private info. This company is not to be trusted.

[yy4me]

46. Compare long distance carriers, go to:

www.calling-plans.com I have used PowerNetGlobal for years, cheap long distance rates, no contract, never a problem. Also, no minimum monthly service charge. I don't make too many long distance calls, have a plan that charges me .049 cents a minute. I think there are others that are less.