CDR: Re: FW: BLOCK: AT&T signs bulk hosting contract with spammers

[William H. Geiger III]

In <a05010401b628f787f0a1@[207.111.241.180]>, on 11/03/00 
   at 05:20 PM, Tim May <tcmay at got.net> said:

>At 11:36 AM -0800 11/3/00, Bill Stewart wrote:

>(about AT&T knowingly supporting Spam sites)

>>
>>Fortunately, somebody got this to the right people at AT&T;
>>otherwise I was going to have to contact the Sales VP (Hovancak)
>>whose name was on the contract and ask him to find the sales rep
>>who got fast-talked into signing that contract. 
>>AT&T's privacy policies mean that we can't reveal information on
>>our customers' networks, so it's the PR folks' problem
>>to tell you that we've learned the error of our ways,

>Oh, I doubt AT&T has "learned the error of its ways." This is just  their
>spin control.

>Like Esther Dyson's spin control..."I won't let it happen again."

>Until, of course, the next mass mailing to her "Dear Friends" goes out.


Am I the only one here that sees something terribly wrong?

AT&T is the bad guy because they hosted a website of an alleged spamer?
AT&T may have seen the "error of their ways" because they are now
performing content based censorship by shutting down the same website (no
SPAM was being sent over their network)? Exactly how far down this
slippery slope should AT&T go?

It is amazing how members of this list can go from cypherpunks to
censorpunks so easily, I guess SPAM is the root passphrase for some
members principles.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III      http://www.openpgp.net  
Geiger Consulting    

Data Security & Cryptology Consulting
Programming, Networking, Analysis
 
PGP for OS/2:               http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
E-Secure:                   http://www.openpgp.net/esecure.html
---------------------------------------------------------------