Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Malor wrote:

Huh? What I'm saying here is that misbehaving cops, no matter how terrible their crimes, are very rarely punished significantly. What does that have to do with piracy?

About as much as it has to do with a police state.

Malor wrote:

Huh? What I'm saying here is that misbehaving cops, no matter how terrible their crimes, are very rarely punished significantly. What does that have to do with piracy?

You appeared to be making the argument that because there are a number of cops that do bad things and get away with it, either because they are not caught or because of a lack of political will to go after them, that the entirety of police departments in the US are corrupt as well.

If that was not the picture you were drawing, I apologize for misunderstanding and attributing to you a position you do not hold.

I was saying that the GOOD departments are like that. The BAD departments are much worse. And I suggested looking up New Orleans. I'll maybe dig up some links later.

Of course it's related to being a police state -- the police being above the law is one of the salient features of the condition. They can f*ck you over sideways and never get touched in any way, but you so much as look at them funny, and you're in jail. Or beaten. Or dead.

mudbunny wrote:
Malor wrote:

Huh? What I'm saying here is that misbehaving cops, no matter how terrible their crimes, are very rarely punished significantly. What does that have to do with piracy?

You appeared to be making the argument that because there are a number of cops that do bad things and get away with it, either because they are not caught or because of a lack of political will to go after them, that the entirety of police departments in the US are corrupt as well.

If that was not the picture you were drawing, I apologize for misunderstanding and attributing to you a position you do not hold.

mudbunny wrote:

Interesting to note that you can also use this style of argument to claim that every person who plays video games is a dirty, stinking pirate, when in fact it is just a minority...

I'm not seeing it, myself. Let me replace the items of your paragraph and see if it works:

You appeared to be making the argument that because there are a number of diverse, unaffiliated people that do bad things and get away with it, either because they are not caught or because of a lack of political will to go after them, that the entirety of people in the world are corrupt as well.

Hmmm. It lacks a bit of focus, doesn't it? Let's try it with gamers:

You appeared to be making the argument that because there are a number of diverse, unaffiliated people that do bad things and get away with it, either because they are not caught or because of a lack of political will to go after them, that the entirety of people in the world are corrupt as well.

Oh, that doesn't work either because gamers are still an unaffiliated multitude of peoples. Trying to put them all in together as if their actions are codified within laws or regulations is completely the opposite of what Malor was saying about the police.

Malor wrote:

Of course it's related to being a police state -- the police being above the law is one of the salient features of the condition. They can f*ck you over sideways and never get touched in any way, but you so much as look at them funny, and you're in jail. Or beaten. Or dead.

It's a salient feature of a *lot* of conditions. It seems there's no distinction here between repression by and corruption in a police force.

Maybe that's what's missing here for me: I'm seeing a lot of corruption, but not a lot of repression. What agenda of the New Orleans government is being advanced by the misbehavior of the New Orleans PD?

Isn't there a difference between a police state, and a state with out of control police?

I am shocked, shocked that an analogy doesn't match up 100%.

He was taking the actions and (lack of) repercussions on a small group and extending it to the whole. I am doing the same thing. If it is valid for him to be strongly implying that there are no good cops, only bad cops that haven't gotten caught yet, then how is that *any* different from implying that all people who play video games are pirates who just haven't gotten caught yet??

Re-posting from the Occupy thread, because it was contributing to a derail over there:


I'm a little fearful that this will throw gasoline on the fire, but here's where I am on this.

Militarized police is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition for a police state. The deployment of those police for political ends is where that line starts being crossed. With the Occupy movement, we're seeing some of that. (The deployment of a SWAT team in Chapel Hill to evict protestors who occupied an abandoned building is only one example). The fact that the Justice Department was involved in advising municipalities on ways to evict peaceful protestors is also a major red flag for me.

I don't think it's an irrevocable trend, but the use of disproportionate police force against nonviolent political protestors is something that should be a concern to all of us.

First Amendment wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bolded the part which I feel is entirely applicable to the various Occupy efforts.

mudbunny wrote:

I am shocked, shocked that an analogy doesn't match up 100%.

He was taking the actions and (lack of) repercussions on a small group and extending it to the whole. I am doing the same thing. If it is valid for him to be strongly implying that there are no good cops, only bad cops that haven't gotten caught yet, then how is that *any* different from implying that all people who play video games are pirates who just haven't gotten caught yet??

Mudbunny, you're missing out on the facts surrounding the mentality of being a cohesive force. Police officers are not all bad and they're not all good - yes, just the same as everyone else in the world - however, and this is a big however, there are *expectations* of how you act and how you support your fellow police officers: you toe the line, even if you don't necessarily agree with it or the actions of people who do those things.

Take, for example, the institutionalised racism and sexism that was prevelant in police forces in the US and UK. It took decades to stamp most of that out and it's still much worse than it is in other areas of society (from what my friends have told me). I'm sure most of those police officers did not behave that way in their normal lives yet did so "on the job" because it was expected and you always had your fellow's back.

Trying to take disparate people, who, like i said, have no standing together and to compare their individual behaviours to those of an organised force is completely nonsensical to me. Anyway, i think we've derailed this thread enough, right?

Duoae wrote:

Trying to take disparate people, who, like i said, have no standing together and to compare their individual behaviours to those of an organised force is completely nonsensical to me. Anyway, i think we've derailed this thread enough, right? ;)

I think it's fair to say you can only use that approach to generalize among an individual police force. It's hard to say because New Orleans has issues with their police force that my local police force does as well.

So you posit that because other people COULD do it, in theory, we SHOULD do it, now?

Sorry. No dice. It doesn't matter what other people are doing if it's wrong. And they're not even doing it -- you're using their possibility of doing so as our reason to start doing it for real, and then of course they'll use our doing it for real to justify doing it themselves.

No, I'm saying that because they *are* doing it, would we be safe to not do that ourselves?

This is already happening. Why do think Hadoop even exists? What you do on commercial websites, and where you go from there and what you do elsewhere, is already tracked, stored, and analyzed in realtime. To improve *marketing* algorithms!

I can't imagine you're happy with that. I'm not particularly happy with it either. But given that it's a fact, the question arises - should not the same technology be available for national security purposes? If not, why not?

So far, no one has even touched on the effects of this, or the consequences of some other countries or groups doing it, or the consequences of our not doing it, or the methods that might be less intrusive. It's just a simplistic "Oh, we shouldn't do that, and you're bad for suggesting it." Well, why, especially because I'm not supporting it? What are the risks of doing it, as opposed to the risks of not doing it? And how do you plan to *stop* it? Because it's happening today, according to various reports.

It's really easy to turn my argument into a first-grade caricature of what I'm asking, but is it too much to ask to consider something that is distasteful and unpleasant? Because just saying "Oh, it's bad" is like arguing for isolationism by saying "Killing is bad and we need to stop wars because of that". It's a nice sentiment, but you know, sometimes things are a wee bit more complicated in the Real World. And this is for sure not a simple question.

So between OMG The Government Will Kill Us All and OMG The Terrorists Will Kill Us All, what are the upsides and downsides of complete internet surveillance at a national level?

As someone who works in network security, specifically on tools for analyzing traffic on very large networks, I can confidently say that the level of tracking for networks is nowhere near the level required for national internet surveillance.

(I honestly don't understand where people get the idea that it's possible, let alone practical.)

As someone who works in the online marketing industry, I can confidently say the level of tracking for ads is nowhere near the level required for national internet surveillance. In fact, it's not even possible using the same methods. It can be thwarted as easily as clearing your cookies.

To elaborate on that, ad tracking is an opt-in system on the website level. Granted, they're opting in by choosing to display ads, they're not explicitly saying "track all of my users" but it still requires a manual change to the site. To track ALL internet usage would require cooperation from the ISPs.

Personally, I'm not in favor of turning private businesses into informants for the government, but that's not actually relevant to the questions you're asking.

Hypatian wrote:

As someone who works in network security, specifically on tools for analyzing traffic on very large networks, I can confidently say that the level of tracking for networks is nowhere near the level required for national internet surveillance.

(I honestly don't understand where people get the idea that it's possible, let alone practical.)

You, apparently, have not watched Person of Interest.

Edwin wrote:

I thought it was very well known fact that the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level. They don't have the processing power to sort through it all and make it useful but they have the copies of it. Mark Klein was a pretty famous whistle blower on the whole thing. I wrote about it in more detail on the 8th post of this thread. http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I did too. Apparently if it happened in the past and didn't get as much news coverage as Kate and Harry's marriage it's suddenly tin foil hattery straight from "Person of Interest".

I wold lump this in with scandal fatigue. The government has broken so many laws in the past 10 years that eventually you lose track and assume thing that were previously scandals are no longer true.

mudbunny wrote:

I am shocked, shocked that an analogy doesn't match up 100%.

He was taking the actions and (lack of) repercussions on a small group and extending it to the whole. I am doing the same thing. If it is valid for him to be strongly implying that there are no good cops, only bad cops that haven't gotten caught yet, then how is that *any* different from implying that all people who play video games are pirates who just haven't gotten caught yet??

The original post asserted that cops aren't punished for their wrongdoings. A more effective way to counter that statement would have been to provide evidence of cops that are actually punished. Your analogy, even if 100% accurate, only portrays how ridiculous the assertion is. It doesn't disprove it. Ridiculous things do happen.

Bear wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

Here's a response I posted in the OWS thread that ties in with the conversation on police states. I was only going to post the article link but wanted to provide the context, which was agreeing to earlier posts on the further militarization of US police.

No one ever made the argument that there aren't incidents of excessive force. What seems to be lost in this conversation is a little context.

Fifty years ago you probably never would have heard about a police raid that went bad. There may have been five people who were accidentally killed in a raid but it wouldn't have made the local papers. You can't point to the past as a benchmark for what's going on today.

Today we live in a world of 24/7/365 news. If it happens, we hear about it. Everything that goes wrongs makes the news. We're also living in a country of 300+ million people, many of them are not so nice. I have no idea what the average number of police interventions, raids and arrests are on a daily basis but the number has got to be staggering. To pick out incidents where things were done wrong and paint that as the norm is disingenuous. It's important to remember that when these mistakes happen, they don't just say "whoops" and walk away. Police don't get to live above the law, nor should they.

I agree with those points to a degree and the reason I posted that response was just to provide context for the link, which helps explain why some police departments are so well armed and so aggressive with their tactics. Here are a few points but again, I suggest reading the entire article:

Arresting people for assaults, beatings and robberies doesn't bring money back to police departments, but drug cases do in a couple of ways. First, police departments across the
country compete for a pool of federal anti-drug grants. The more arrests and drug seizures a department can claim, the stronger its application for those grants.

"The availability of huge federal anti-drug grants incentivizes departments to pay for SWAT team armor and weapons, and leads our police officers to abandon real crime victims in our communities in favor of ratcheting up their drug arrest stats," said former Los Angeles Deputy Chief of Police Stephen Downing. Downing is now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an advocacy group of cops and prosecutors who are calling for an end to the drug war.

"When our cops are focused on executing large-scale, constitutionally questionable raids at the slightest hint that a small-time pot dealer is at work, real police work preventing and investigating crimes like robberies and rapes falls by the wayside," Downing said

.

The most perverse policy may be asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, police can seize property from people merely suspected of drug crimes. So long as police can show even the slightest link of drug activity to a car, some cash, or even a home, they can seize it. In the majority of cases, most or all of the seized cash goes back to the police department. In some cases, the department has taken possession of cars as well, but generally non-cash property is auctioned off, with the proceeds then going back to the department. An innocent person who has property seized must go to court and prove his property was earned legitimately, even if he was never charged with a crime. The process of going to court can often be more expensive than the value of the property itself.

Asset forfeiture not only encourages police agencies to use resources and manpower on drug crimes at the expense of violent crimes, it also provides an incentive for police agencies to actually wait until drugs are on the streets before making a bust. In a 1994 study reported in Justice Quarterly, criminologists J. Mitchell Miller and Lance H. Selva watched several police agencies delay busts of suspected drug dealers in order to maximize the cash the department could seize. A stash of illegal drugs isn't of much value to a police department. Letting the dealers sell the drugs first is more lucrative

.

I thought it was very well known fact that the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level. They don't have the processing power to sort through it all and make it useful but they have the copies of it. Mark Klein was a pretty famous whistle blower on the whole thing. I wrote about it in more detail on the 8th post of this thread. http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

edit: Just now on Slashdot:

Here's an interesting take on the IT security industry and tools being sold and used by to monitor internet users. It's no secret that many states and nations are censoring and monitoring the Internet. Many of these governments are considered authoritarian regimes, often times with trade restrictions and other sanctions against them. Most of these censorship systems are based on proprietary, enterprise hardware and solutions. Unfortunately, those who decide where these tools end up are often torn between conflicting interests. How many services and devices are actually being used by people whom we prefer would not have access to them? How long until they are used against us, even if indirectly? At which point do we have to stop looking at Information Security as a market, and begin viewing it as a matter of defense and (inter)national security?
DSGamer wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I thought it was very well known fact that the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level. They don't have the processing power to sort through it all and make it useful but they have the copies of it. Mark Klein was a pretty famous whistle blower on the whole thing. I wrote about it in more detail on the 8th post of this thread. http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I did too. Apparently if it happened in the past and didn't get as much news coverage as Kate and Harry's marriage it's suddenly tin foil hattery straight from "Person of Interest".

That's not cool man. I know this is a charged and heated subject, but if we could calm down and be willing to write with more civility than this we wouldn't be in the situation we are now where people like Bear (just an example!) will dismiss our viewpoints because of the hyper-rhetoric.

Let's get the information out, with evidence, calmly and lets discuss. I'd like to think that everyone here is open minded enough to change their minds when presented with evidence that challenges their conception of how they see people, things and situations.

Edwin wrote:

I thought it was very well known fact that the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level. They don't have the processing power to sort through it all and make it useful but they have the copies of it.

Actually, it's much more likely that they're processing and digesting it (possibly looking for keywords, possibly looking for other things) than that they're actually copying and keeping it all for later analysis. Note that the pages at EFF describe data being routed into a room controlled by the NSA--basically, a black box. Hard to say what goes on in there. EFF also specifies AT&T and fails to specify what "Internet traffic" means. Getting all traffic from all of AT&T's interfaces into that room in SF is unlikely. So there is evidence that at least some data from at least one ISP was being processed in some way. That constitutes evidence of neither the ability to "copy every byte at the ISP level" nor the actual use of such an ability.

It's a heinous breach of the law, and it's very much worth raising your voice about--but it's not necessarily the capability you're claiming. (And even though NSA is generally 10+ years ahead of everybody else mathematically, the capability you're claiming does a lot more than strain credulity on the purely physical level.)

Google almost certainly *knows* a lot more about you than the NSA does.

Edwin wrote:

That's not cool man. I know this is a charged and heated subject, but if we could calm down and be willing to write with more civility than this we wouldn't be in the situation we are now where people like Bear (just an example!) will dismiss our viewpoints because of the hyper-rhetoric.

Let's get the information out, with evidence, calmly and lets discuss. I'd like to think that everyone here is open minded enough to change their minds when presented with evidence that challenges their conception of how they see people, things and situations.

You need to read what I wrote in context. I was neither being charged, nor heated. I was "flipping the script" as the kids say, since that's something that other people have been saying throughout this thread and the OWS thread. I'm not the one referencing "Person of Interest" and calling people nuts. I'm simply saying that's what those of us who believe the situation is more serious are being accused of consistently.

Jayhawker wrote:

Oh, that's right. I saw this show on Thursdays. It's Person of Interest. Fascinating, but it's not real, you know. Just because they have the right to look at my emails, it doesn't mean they are actually reading them.

Bear wrote:

I think there's another slippery slope here, the slope that allows you to slip into black helicopter and tin foil hat territory. The next thing you'll be telling me is that we blew up the WTC.

Emphasis mine. I did not bring tin foil hats and procedural crime dramas being taken too seriously into this discussion.

Hypatian wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I thought it was very well known fact that the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level. They don't have the processing power to sort through it all and make it useful but they have the copies of it.

Actually, it's much more likely that they're processing and digesting it (possibly looking for keywords, possibly looking for other things) than that they're actually copying and keeping it all for later analysis. Note that the pages at EFF describe data being routed into a room controlled by the NSA--basically, a black box. Hard to say what goes on in there. EFF also specifies AT&T and fails to specify what "Internet traffic" means. Getting all traffic from all of AT&T's interfaces into that room in SF is unlikely. So there is evidence that at least some data from at least one ISP was being processed in some way. That constitutes evidence of neither the ability to "copy every byte at the ISP level" nor the actual use of such an ability.

It's a heinous breach of the law, and it's very much worth raising your voice about--but it's not necessarily the capability you're claiming. (And even though NSA is generally 10+ years ahead of everybody else mathematically, the capability you're claiming does a lot more than strain credulity on the purely physical level.)

Google almost certainly *knows* a lot more about you than the NSA does.

It is more than just AT&T.

It's rather hard to believe that the surveillance relationship between ISPs and the NSA can get any cozier, what with companies like AT&T dumping all voice and data traffic unfiltered into the NSA's lap (pdf). Still, the Washington Post says that the NSA has been working with a number of ISPs on "a new generation of tools to scan e-mail and other digital traffic".

AT&T and Verizon were caught funneling of traffic to the NSA, and were able to have the law changed to avoid punishment. AT&T was also found to be repeatedly helping the FBI break privacy laws, going so far as to actually act as intelligence analysts for the government. The Post notes that the program was delayed briefly because the Justice Department was concerned that the program would run afoul of privacy laws forbidding government surveillance of private Internet traffic -- but the DOJ apparently got over those concerns rather quickly.

And it is all internet and voice traffic.

22-year AT&T employee Mark Klein's discovery (pdf) that AT&T was funneling Internet and voice data wholesale to the NSA without judicial oversight is at the center of the warrantless wiretapping controversy, and the EFF's lawsuit against carriers and Uncle Sam. Should telecom operators get immunity today, that lawsuit will be scrapped. Klein talks to Democracy Now's Amy Goodman about life as a whistle blower.
DSGamer wrote:
Edwin wrote:

That's not cool man. I know this is a charged and heated subject, but if we could calm down and be willing to write with more civility than this we wouldn't be in the situation we are now where people like Bear (just an example!) will dismiss our viewpoints because of the hyper-rhetoric.

Let's get the information out, with evidence, calmly and lets discuss. I'd like to think that everyone here is open minded enough to change their minds when presented with evidence that challenges their conception of how they see people, things and situations.

You need to read what I wrote in context. I was neither being charged, nor heated. I was "flipping the script" as the kids say, since that's something that other people have been saying throughout this thread and the OWS thread. I'm not the one referencing "Person of Interest" and calling people nuts. I'm simply saying that's what those of us who believe the situation is more serious are being accused of consistently.

Jayhawker wrote:

Oh, that's right. I saw this show on Thursdays. It's Person of Interest. Fascinating, but it's not real, you know. Just because they have the right to look at my emails, it doesn't mean they are actually reading them.

Bear wrote:

I think there's another slippery slope here, the slope that allows you to slip into black helicopter and tin foil hat territory. The next thing you'll be telling me is that we blew up the WTC.

Emphasis mine. I did not bring tin foil hats and procedural crime dramas being taken too seriously into this discussion.

Sorry dsgamer. I shouldn't have scolded you as harshly. So let me just ask that we all try and talk this rationally with evidence backed posts, and that we actually read stuff people have taken time research and offer.

I have not seen anything that inferred my emails were being read and my phone calls listened to. I absolutely believe that they can access the web sites I visited and the numbers I have dialed and received calls from. I don't think they are reading my texts, but I believe they have access to them if they want them.

I don't believe much of anything we do online is hidden. I'd prefer my ISP require a warrant, and I would want the Patriot Act which allows them to skip the warrant repealed.

But I don't believe there is a giant super computer collecting all of my data and popping up red flags everytime I type the word "bomb" or "Allah."

Jayhawker wrote:

I have not seen anything that inferred my emails were being read and my phone calls listened to. I absolutely believe that they can access the web sites I visited and the numbers I have dialed and received calls from. I don't think they are reading my texts, but I believe they have access to them if they want them.

I don't believe much of anything we do online is hidden. I'd prefer my ISP require a warrant, and I would want the Patriot Act which allows them to skip the warrant repealed.

But I don't believe there is a giant super computer collecting all of my data and popping up red flags everytime I type the word "bomb" or "Allah."

I'm curious why you don't think it's any worse than the bare minimum they've admitted to. When we keep hearing reports that the data collection is worse than legally allowed, what basis is there for assuming that they're not doing anything extra with it?

At the very least it means the government has a giant database of information that allows them to go around search warrants. Or to perform illegal searches prior to obtaining a warrant. We know this has already been abused heavily in drug cases.

Either way, I'm still confused as to why anyone trusts the government with this data collection. Or how we got to the point that something so blatantly un-Constitutional warrants a *shrug* from some people. The rule of law matters.

Jayhawker wrote:

I have not seen anything that inferred my emails were being read and my phone calls listened to. I absolutely believe that they can access the web sites I visited and the numbers I have dialed and received calls from. I don't think they are reading my texts, but I believe they have access to them if they want them.

I don't believe much of anything we do online is hidden. I'd prefer my ISP require a warrant, and I would want the Patriot Act which allows them to skip the warrant repealed.

But I don't believe there is a giant super computer collecting all of my data and popping up red flags everytime I type the word "bomb" or "Allah."

I don't think they are being read by a human either, and probably not even a machine/program/algorithm (uneducated guess on the machine, with no evidence to support this claim). I'm just presenting evidence that

  • the NSA is collecting all data and voice traffic at the ISP level.
  • the NSA, DoJ, and the Federal Government are violating wiretapping laws to do so (warrantless wiretapping)
  • denying all existence of such a program contrary to evidence
  • have used government contracts as punishments for ISPs that do not play ball (Pre-9/11).
  • that ISPs are assisting the FBI to break privacy laws with no due process of information.
  • that hardly anyone in charge seems to give a sh*t.
Edwin wrote:

And it is all internet and voice traffic.

VoIP traffic, according to that.

The documents you link still do not support the thesis that all of that traffic is being taken from all sites, nor that they are recording it or forwarding it verbatim. In fact, at the end of the discovery, it's noted that "I learned that such '[redacted]' were being installed in other cities, including [redacted]." (Implying that it had not been installed everywhere at time of writing, and that they were proceeding city by city.)

I continue to agree that this is an incredibly bad thing, that it is completely unacceptable, and that it should be stopped.

But I also continue to believe, with considerable reason, that drawing the conclusion that "the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level" is no more logical than deducing that because the DoD has both aircraft carriers and helicopters, they must have helicarriers.

(Edited to add: And I wholeheartedly believe that the NSA would *love* to have the capability you describe. I just don't believe they do have it.)

Edwin wrote:

That's not cool man. I know this is a charged and heated subject, but if we could calm down and be willing to write with more civility than this we wouldn't be in the situation we are now where people like Bear (just an example!) will dismiss our viewpoints because of the hyper-rhetoric.

Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing your viewpoints because of rhetoric. I'm dismissing them because you're drawing conclusions and making broad brush statements based on information that is at best, incomplete.

Just because I completely and utterly disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean that my positions are any more or less valid than yours.

Hypatian wrote:
Edwin wrote:

And it is all internet and voice traffic.

VoIP traffic, according to that.

The documents you link still do not support the thesis that all of that traffic is being taken from all sites, nor that they are recording it or forwarding it verbatim. In fact, at the end of the discovery, it's noted that "I learned that such '[redacted]' were being installed in other cities, including [redacted]." (Implying that it had not been installed everywhere at time of writing, and that they were proceeding city by city.)

I continue to agree that this is an incredibly bad thing, that it is completely unacceptable, and that it should be stopped.

But I also continue to believe, with considerable reason, that drawing the conclusion that "the NSA is copying every byte at the ISP level" is no more logical than deducing that because the DoD has both aircraft carriers and helicopters, they must have helicarriers.

(Edited to add: And I wholeheartedly believe that the NSA would *love* to have the capability you describe. I just don't believe they do have it.)

A guy from AT&T confirmed that it is true from AT&T. Do you really think it's a more likely scenario that this is limited to just AT&T?