AT&T Now Offers Gigabit Internet in Kansas City at the Same Price as Google Fiber, but... - Polidicks

You have to agree to let them monitor your browsing habits and [I]inject "personalized" ads[/I] into websites as you browse them. You can of course opt out of the "personal" ads, but they'll still gather data on your browsing habits. Oh, and they'll charge you an extra [B]THIRTY DOLLARS PER MONTH[/B] to opt out. [quote]It was a pretty big deal when Google chose Kansas City to pilot its Fiber program, which promised blazing fast internet speeds 75-100X faster than cable or DSL. On Sunday, AT&T announced it will finally roll out its own Google Fiber competitor, called “GigaPower,” in the same city, according to the Kansas City Star. AT&T’s gigabit service will cost the same as Google’s — just $70 a month — [B]but AT&T is charging customers an extra $29 a month if they want to opt out of the company’s “Internet Preferences” program, which tracks “the webpages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter[/B].” [B]AT&T’s Internet Preferences program also “works independently of your browser's privacy settings regarding cookies, do-not-track, and private browsing. If you opt-in to AT&T Internet Preferences, AT&T will still be able to collect and use your Web browsing information independent of those settings."[/B] [B]In other words, unless you pay the extra $30 a month, AT&T will use the information it collects about your web browsing habits to serve you targeted ads.[/B] [/quote] Fuck AT&T up the ass and sideways. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/att-gigapower-tackles-google-fiber-in-kansas-city--but-its-charging-more-for-privacy-2015-2[/url]

[quote]"You have to agree to let them monitor your browsing habits and inject "personalized" ads into websites as you browse them."[/quote] Isn't google fibre doing the same data mining on you if you have their line, which is why they can give it for so cheap? Still 100 dollars for gig? Pretty damn good honestly

Watch as AT&T makes no money from this.

does google fiber do the same thing? (track your stuff to target you with ads, not the 30$/month thing)

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;47167331]Isn't google fibre doing the same data mining on you if you have their line, which is why they can give it for so cheap? Still 100 dollars for gig? Pretty damn good honestly[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Wii60;47167375]does google fiber do the same thing? (track your stuff to target you with ads, not the 30$/month thing)[/QUOTE] Not through Fiber itself. They do it through their other services (like Search, Chrome, etc,) and they do allow you to opt out of tracking completely for [B][I]free.[/I][/B]

Welcome to competition, motherfuckers.

Oh fuck off AT&T.

i can already see the kind of hilarity this will cause when some kids mom or dad starts seeing an increase in advertisements certain [i]things[/i] :v:

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47167379]AdBlockPlus, no ads. I mean this really isn't any different from Facebook and Google, which pretty much does this anyways. There is no "private" browsing, someone can always know what you're doing. Browsing public websites on open networks is comparable with being in public, people can easily see what you're doing, they probably won't care. (Unless they're on a commie-hunt like NSA) This really isn't that big of a deal the more I think about it. It could be a LOT worse, like "websites talking negative about At&t will not appear" or something. It also depends on what "information" they track. I would not be comfortable with every salesthing on the internet knowing my specific personal information (name, age, address) unless I willingly gave it up to that source (Facebook). My browsing habits, that's really not anything. The 30 dollars thing is shit, though.[/QUOTE] This is kinda a fundamental misunderstanding of how AdBlockPlus works. I mean it just refuses a connection to the ad providers based on a list of them and chooses not to render the HTML elements, it won't stop your ISP that can read any and all of your internet traffic completely out of your control from gathering all the data it wants on you. Yeah ABP can still stop you from viewing the personalized ads (probably) but it won't stop the data gathering, and likely selling, which is most of the problem.

I'm not too knowledgeable on this stuff, is there any way to avoid being tracked by using some sort of encryption or something?

If Google does the same kind of thing, well, you can't say "FUCK AT&T" without also saying "FUCK GOOGLE".

[QUOTE=Ardosos;47167463]I'm not too knowledgeable on this stuff, is there any way to avoid being tracked by using some sort of encryption or something?[/QUOTE] VPN would be your best bet, tor if you are desperate. VPNs that are worth a damn best to my knowledge either come at a cost or come with a cap.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;47167463]I'm not too knowledgeable on this stuff, is there any way to avoid being tracked by using some sort of encryption or something?[/QUOTE] vps/proxy i would imagine

[QUOTE=Elspin;47167456]This is kinda a fundamental misunderstanding of how AdBlockPlus works. I mean it just refuses a connection to the ad providers based on a list of them and chooses not to render the HTML elements, it won't stop your ISP that can read any and all of your internet traffic completely out of your control from gathering all the data it wants on you. Yeah ABP can still stop you from viewing the personalized ads (probably) but it won't stop the data gathering, and likely selling, which is most of the problem.[/QUOTE] How would it work with Tor? Or even, if you created a proxy to which you sent the headers in a format or encryption only you could read? What if you used another protocol instead? I would hate to see them inject adds into FTP downloads, so I'm assuming they must have some exclusion parameters people can exploit?

[QUOTE=James xX;47167477]How would it work with Tor? Or even, if you created a proxy to which you sent the headers in a format or encryption only you could read? What if you used another protocol instead? I would hate to see them inject adds into FTP downloads, so I'm assuming they must have some exclusion parameters people can exploit?[/QUOTE] Depending on how it works and how secure it is encryption could solve the problem but there's no way you can feasibly expect most people to be able to encrypt basically all of their communication through a network. [i]Anything[/i] you send whether it's a skype message, FTP download, or a visit to questionable internet forums obviously goes through your ISP and unless it's encrypted they can see it plain and clear. also you don't get to choose how you send data when you're communicating someone else - if you garbled the data that, say, your skype client sent to another skype client - the other end wouldn't know how to read it. If you can control both ends of the communication by mangling the packet with a third party packet capture program then it's fine but then you need to have the other side agree to it! It's definitely not a feasible solution for the vast majority of things

[QUOTE=Forumaster;47167314]You have to agree to let them monitor your browsing habits and [I]inject "personalized" ads[/I] into websites as you browse them.[/QUOTE] so what google already does not saying that google is on the same level as AT&T but you're basically paying $29 for more security that you shouldn't pay for

[QUOTE=Elspin;47167492]Depending on how it works and how secure it is encryption could solve the problem but there's no way you can feasibly expect most people to be able to encrypt basically all of their communication through a network. [i]Anything[/i] you send whether it's a skype message, FTP download, or a visit to questionable internet forums obviously goes through your ISP and unless it's encrypted they can see it plain and clear. also you don't get to choose how you send data when you're communicating someone else - if you garbled the data that, say, your skype client sent to another skype client - the other end wouldn't know how to read it. If you can control both ends of the communication by mangling the packet with a third party packet capture program then it's fine but then you need to have the other side agree to it! It's definitely not a feasible solution for the vast majority of things[/QUOTE] Wouldn't there be some way to configure or rewrite your network drivers to encrypt everything and send it to a pre-determined proxy?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47167507]This affects you not at all. Yes, they'll get your browsing data. So does every website you visit, every sever you use, etc. If they can sell " I.P. xx browsed xx for xx minutes" and make money from that, more power to them[/QUOTE] The difference (and part of why this is really scary) is your ISP is the person who can attach a name and address to that IP... they wouldn't be selling "IP xx browsed xx for xx minutes", they'd be selling "Joe Smith from 438 40th st wisconsin browsed scat porn for 3 hours" [editline]18th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=James xX;47167523]Wouldn't there be some way to configure or rewrite your network drivers to encrypt everything and send it to a pre-determined proxy?[/QUOTE] Totally but both ends need to agree on the communication. Basically when you send a packet there's -headers added by the network card, operating system, protocol -data sent by the program when the program gets the data after it goes through the physical and OS layers, if it's garbled at all it won't work, period. If you decide to encrypt data it [b]absolutely must be pre-agreed upon[/b] that the other side will decrypt it. If you just made a program that encrypts your skype messages before sending them out your network card, the receiving party would just get a pile of junk that it can't read because they'd need to have the same program decrypting the message before redirecting it to skype, as well.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47167525]The difference (and part of why this is really scary) is your ISP is the person who can attach a name and address to that IP... they wouldn't be selling "IP xx browsed xx for xx minutes", they'd be selling Joe Smith from 438 40th st wisconsin browsed scat porn for 3 hours" [editline]18th February 2015[/editline] Totally but both ends need to agree on the communication. Basically when you send a packet there's -headers added by the network card, operating system, protocol -data sent by the program when the program gets the data after it goes through the physical and OS layers, if it's garbled at all it won't work, period. If you decide to encrypt data it [b]absolutely must be pre-agreed upon[/b] that the other side will decrypt it. If you just made a program that encrypts your skype messages before sending them out your network card, the receiving party would just get a pile of junk that it can't read because they'd need to have the same program decrypting the message before redirecting it to skype, as well.[/QUOTE] My point is, the proxy, which wouldn't be in the ATT network, would then rely the data, unencrypted, get the unencrypted reply, and send it back to us in the encrypted form. Me ---Encrypted---> Proxy -----Unencrypted---> Server ----Unencrypted---> Proxy ----Encrypted---> Me.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47167525]The difference (and part of why this is really scary) is your ISP is the person who can attach a name and address to that IP... they wouldn't be selling "IP xx browsed xx for xx minutes", they'd be selling Joe Smith from 438 40th st wisconsin browsed scat porn for 3 hours"[/QUOTE] How often do you use Google services? Anyone who uses Gmail and Google Maps is already handing over their name, private information, street address, and search history to a faceless corporation as it is. Why are people only now starting to be concerned? [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47167544]Then there needs to be laws regarding privacy of data collection, allowing data collection but making it anonymous. I would not be okay with anything that specific.[/QUOTE] Good luck writing that piece of legislation. If you're deliberately going to a website and requesting their service it's going to take a very specific law to prevent them from maintaining consumer records.

[QUOTE=Sombrero;47167443]Oh fuck off AT&T.[/QUOTE] Why? They're trying to roll out a competitive gigabit network. ANYTHING that gets this more widespread is a win. AT&T is going to be investing some notable cash in this. If it really really flops, they're going to make at least some attempt to make it better.

[QUOTE=James xX;47167550]My point is, the proxy, which wouldn't be in the ATT network, would then rely the data, unencrypted, get the unencrypted reply, and send it back to us in the encrypted form. Me ---Encrypted---> Proxy -----Unencrypted---> Server ----Unencrypted---> Proxy ----Encrypted---> Me.[/QUOTE] I suppose that might work, you'd just need to write some kind of network card hack that would automatically encrypt data in a way the proxy would expect because normally when you send data from a socket inside a program it immediately sends it to the OS layer. You can't tamper with it yourself at that point, normally. [editline]18th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;47167578]How often do you use Google services? Anyone who uses Gmail and Google Maps is already handing over their name, private information, street address, and search history to a faceless corporation as it is. Why are people only now starting to be concerned?[/QUOTE] Google is a list of services on the internet, that you can choose to use or not use depending on the situation, and you can choose to use fake information for whatever you want. Your ISP, conversely, has access to your name and physical address and has access to any and all unencrypted information you send over the internet.

I personally don't mind targeted ads, or other advertisement related things. I believe more of it to be a design issue with websites (if you have ten download buttons but only one of them is the one I want, fuck you.) However, I must say that I disagree with hating AT&T being hypocritical while not hating Google. I do not mind selling my data to Google if I have the option to opt out and the options remain free. In this case, it is a matter of giving permission to a piece of software to do something rather than what I would view as extortion in forcing a consumer to pay a fee so that a company won't track them. This is also a key example of how Google and AT&T differ in business model, where AT&T makes money by connecting people online by primarily charging for service. Whereas Google appears to make very little by connecting people to the internet but relies on the usage of their services (gmail, search, etc...) which makes it profitable for them to connect as many people as possible.

For me I honestly wouldn't care, if people want to know about the few cartoons shows I watch, the stupid posts I make on internet forum(s), or such so what. Credit card companies mine what I buy, Esellers mine what I search, Banks know what I spend and make. Honestly I am more or less past the point of caring.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;47167331]Isn't google fibre doing the same data mining on you if you have their line, which is why they can give it for so cheap? Still 100 dollars for gig? Pretty damn good honestly[/QUOTE] It's still AT&T. They just got busted for bogus bullshit charges that they pretend they don't know anything about. I've personally been affected by it myself and know the headache it is to get them to stop. I even changed my card number and everything and there it is, a month later, the same bogus charge that AT&T Denied was them. It took a bank manager and the threat of legal action to get them to stop. You call them, they say it isn't them, it's these other people. So you call these other people and they don't even know who the fuck you are, because it wasn't them to begin with, so you call AT&T again and they insist it isn't them. It's like Bitch the charges started the minute that you charged me, explain that shit So $30/month DSL ended up being $450 for 3 months. I said fuck that, if I'm paying that much money then I'm going to stick with cable since it's at least sometimes faster (yes, my Cable ISP is so bad I went and got DSL to game with)

i was just thinking about something very similar to this but instead of internet service it was a way to buy expensive products for cheap

[QUOTE=Sally;47167467]VPN would be your best bet, tor if you are desperate. VPNs that are worth a damn best to my knowledge either come at a cost or come with a cap.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure you're going to use one after purchasing a 1gbps connection.

VPN could potentially still be disrupted by a man in the middle attack. [url]http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/White-Paper-The-Achilles-heel-of-VPNs-the-man-in-the-middle-attack[/url] Since it's your ISP it would be very easy to locate and crack.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;47167666]For me I honestly wouldn't care, if people want to know about the few cartoons shows I watch, the stupid posts I make on internet forum(s), or such so what. Credit card companies mine what I buy, Esellers mine what I search, Banks know what I spend and make. Honestly I am more or less past the point of caring.[/QUOTE] One of my problems with that beyond privacy concerns is the security of that data. They might not do anything with my data beyond marketing, but if they are compromised due to the notorious general lack of security in business, I could be unknowingly and helplessly compromised due to their idiocy. Additionally, I also fear companies that hoard and collect personal data selling it to those people finder sites. Imagine in the future if one pops up that is able to display stuff like what sites you spend your time on, what your sexual fetishes are, who you talk to, what you eat, etc. I also feel violated that my data is being traded to others. It's like someone's selling nude photos of me to whoever wants to pay for it.

[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;47167732]VPN could potentially still be disrupted by a man in the middle attack. [url]http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/White-Paper-The-Achilles-heel-of-VPNs-the-man-in-the-middle-attack[/url] Since it's your ISP it would be very easy to locate and crack.[/QUOTE] Super old and outdated article though; modern VPN protocols with modern authentication methods don't really have such vulnerabilities anymore.