AT&T has made it a whole lot easier to learn who has bought Apple’s transformative iPad.  An AT&T security lapse permitted a third party to access and obtain the e-mail addresses and individual iPad ID’s of all 114,000 current owners of the device.  That third party, Goatse Security, then promptly handed over the entire list — some 2,000 pages long, to Gawker — who exposed some big name iPad owners last week.

More importantly, several high officials in government and the military were also identified as iPad owners, even as the security lapse could have given access to the exact location of any of them.

In the media and entertainment industries, affected accounts belonged to top executives at the New York Times Company, Dow Jones, Condé Nast, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corporation, HBO and Hearst.

Within the tech industry, accounts were compromised at Google, Amazon, Microsoft and AOL, among others. In finance, accounts belonged to companies from Goldman Sachs to JP Morgan to Citigroup to Morgan Stanley, along with dozens of venture capital and private equity firms.

Some of the movers and shakers exposed (Image: Gawker)

In government, affected accounts included a GMail user who appears to be Rahm Emanuel and staffers in the Senate, House of Representatives, Department of Justice, NASA, Department of Homeland Security, FAA, FCC, and National Institute of Health, among others. Dozens of employees of the federal court system also appeared on the list.

While Gawker considers the implications of a widespread security breach and whether Apple or AT&T is to blame, others are focusing more intently on AT&T’s role in the misadventure.

AT&T e-mailed every iPad owner notification of the security breach only after it became public news:

“On June 7 we learned that unauthorized computer ‘hackers’ maliciously exploited a function designed to make your iPad log-in process faster by pre-populating an AT&T authentication page with the email address you used to register your iPad for 3G service. The self-described hackers wrote software code to randomly generate numbers that mimicked serial numbers of the AT&T SIM card for iPad – called the integrated circuit card identification (ICC-ID) – and repeatedly queried an AT&T web address. When a number generated by the hackers matched an actual ICC-ID, the authentication page log-in screen was returned to the hackers with the email address associated with the ICC-ID already populated on the log-in screen.

The hackers deliberately went to great efforts with a random program to extract possible ICC-IDs and capture customer email addresses. They then put together a list of these emails and distributed it for their own publicity.

As soon as we became aware of this situation, we took swift action to prevent any further unauthorized exposure of customer email addresses. Within hours, AT&T disabled the mechanism that automatically populated the email address. Now, the authentication page log-in screen requires the user to enter both their email address and their password.”

AT&T’s damage control has been one-part victim, two-parts minimize the impact, sprinkled with “attack the messenger” all over the top.

AT&T’s characterization of the security team that exposed the security flaw as malicious hackers brought a swift response from Goatse:

AT&T had plenty of time to inform the public before our disclosure. It was not done. Post-patch, disclosure should be immediate– within the hour. Days afterward is not acceptable.

[…] The potential for this sort of attack and the number of iPad users on the list we saw who were stewards of major public and commercial infrastructure necessitated our public disclosure. People in critical positions have a right to completely understand the scope of vulnerability immediately. Not days or weeks or months after potential intrusion.

In addition AT&T says the person responsible for this went “to great efforts”. I’ll tell you this, the finder of the AT&T email leak spent just over a single hour of labor total (not counting the time the script ran with no human intervention) to scrape the 114,000 emails. If you see this as “great efforts”, so be it.

AT&T’s mistakes just keep on coming, ranging from ongoing billing errors amounting to hundreds of dollars to threatening customers with cease and desist orders just for e-mailing concerns to the company.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Goatse Owens Calls ATT Security Flaw Egregious 6-10-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News ran this interview with a representative from Goatse Security that got a bit over-technical for the average Bloomberg viewer.  (4 minutes)

AT&T is a paid sponsor of the eightWest program, which may have had something to do with those eight minutes of positive coverage.

Last month, a Rochester, N.Y., morning television news show handed over five minutes of airtime in a thinly-disguised advertisement for local phone company Frontier Communications.

WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids took shilling to a whole new level this morning on its hour-long morning lifestyle program eightWest when it handed over nearly eight minutes to promote AT&T’s U-verse service, infomercial-style.

Essentially handing the microphone over to AT&T area marketing manager Dan Wells, the show’s hosts fell all over themselves talking about how wonderful the service was.  Channel 8’s Terry DeBoer had her original AT&T installation personally supervised by Wells, a service ordinary Grand Rapids consumers probably won’t receive.

As the “Cutting Edge” segment progressed, the station ran a chyron including AT&T’s logo and slogan, “Rethink Possible” as Wells talked about all of the service’s claimed benefits.  DeBoer just thought it was all awesome, gushing this sampler of reactions as a technobeat soundtrack pounded away in the background:

• “An exciting new adventure in television!”
• “It really is quite remarkable!”
• “The super-sized DVR is awesome!”
• “What are the other services and features that take U-verse to the next level?”
• “It’s exclusively offered to you by our friends at AT&T.”
• “Thanks to the power of AT&T and all of their services, you can save money.”

After eight minutes of enthusiasm, there was no time left to inform viewers of a slightly relevant fact only visitors to their website might have noticed: AT&T is a sponsor of the eightWest program.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOOD Grand Rapids ATT U-Verse 6-10-10.flv[/flv]

Spend eight minutes in AT&T’s marketing Universe on WOOD-TV’s morning lifestyle program, eightWest.  (8 minutes)

A pro-consumer group has released a new report that refutes claims from the telecommunications industry that broadband reform represents an investment killer and takeover of the Internet by the Obama Administration.

Free Press this week challenging 10 of the wildest claims in its report, “The Truth About the Third Way: Separating Fact from Fiction in the FCC Reclassification Debate.” Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ Policy Counsel used publicly available evidence to effectively debunk the multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to stop broadband reform.

Unfortunately, more than a handful in Congress have accepted those discredited claims as fact.  Free Press hopes truth will prevail over the enormous money-fueled opposition effort, especially as the FCC begins proceedings next week on its proposed “Third Way” approach to broadband oversight. The agency is expected to issue a Notice of Inquiry and to seek public comment on the issues of broadband reform and reclassification.

A sampling from the report, which we encourage you to read:

Fiction #3: Placing broadband services back under the Commission’s explicit authority will stifle investment in broadband networks.

Fact: The FCC’s proposed policy merely preserves the status quo prior to the recent uncertainty created by the federal appeals court ruling. As a result, it should have little to no effect on company investment decisions.

Many industry representatives and investment analysts have dismissed the notion that the FCC’s Third Way will deter investment. Furthermore, history contradicts the claim that applying some of the rules contained in Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service providers (as the Commission has proposed) will adversely affect investment in the networks. Telecommunications industry investments soared during the period when carriers were subject to the full panoply of rules contained in Title II. Investments only began decreasing once the FCC began dismantling many of the pro-competition rules stemming from this part of the Communications Act.

As we've said at Stop the Cap! for two years now, providers' investments in upgrading and expanding their networks are declining, even as demand (and prices) for those services are increasing.

Fiction #4: Placing broadband services back under the FCC’s explicit authority will lead to job losses in the telecom sector.

Fact: The telecommunications sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation, a trend that continues unabated even as company revenues reach historic highs.

The notion that the FCC’s move to re-establish its authority over broadband networks will harm employment is also nothing more than unsupported rhetoric. The simple reality is this sector accelerated its job-shedding following industry consolidation and FCC deregulation. And this trend continued even as overall revenues in the sector continued to expand. Unfortunately, the underlying market economics and company statements suggest this trend will continue regardless of how the FCC acts on the regulatory authority question.

So much for the argument that regulation will cause job losses. As this plainly illustrates, even as profits fatten at AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, employment numbers are on a steep decline in today's deregulated marketplace.

Fiction # 7: The FCC’s Third Way proposal is an unprecedented power-grab which departs from Congress’s intent to leave the Internet unregulated.

Fact: The FCC’s proposal will bring the Commission’s approach to broadband networks in harmony with longstanding principles in communications policy. The law always has recognized a distinction between communications infrastructure (like broadband networks) and the content that travels over that infrastructure (such as websites on the Internet). In fact, it was the Powell FCC’s decision to abandon oversight over broadband networks that represented a radical and irresponsible shift — by treating basic connectivity services just like content, the Powell FCC undermined the Commission ability to make pro-competitive, pro-consumer policies in the broadband space. This FCC’s proposal would return to the first principles of communications policy that fostered innovation, competition and investment in the first place.

Fiction #8: The FCC’s proposal would amount to a “government takeover of the Internet.”

Fact: The FCC’s proposal would draw a line between basic two-way communications — which have always been regulated by the FCC — and Internet applications and websites, which would remain unregulated by the FCC. None of the parties in the debate before the FCC have suggested that the FCC impose any kind of content regulation on the Internet. Nor has anyone suggested that the government take over the physical infrastructure that forms the Internet. Rather, the FCC is proposing to apply some basic, light-touch rules of the road to the owners of broadband networks.

These rules will attempt to encourage private investment, promote competition, and foster innovation, economic growth, and job creation. Further, restoring its regulatory framework back in harmony with the law will insure the FCC has basic consumer protection authority.

Spangler

While the mainstream media and some of AT&T’s apologists tell consumers AT&T’s 2 GB monthly usage limit will impact only a handful of “abusers,” the cable trade press is telling its readers the industry insider’s secret — consumers will blow right through those caps.

Todd Spangler, who is an Internet Overcharging advocate and columnist for Multichannel News, a cable industry trade magazine, writes the implications of AT&T’s usage cap couldn’t be clearer to him.

The new iPhone 4, introduced yesterday to the predictable media crush, provides 10 hours of battery life for playing video, among other features.

But now that AT&T has eliminated its all-you-can-eat plan for smartphones, you will blow through the maximum 3G usage for the entry-level 200 MB plan if you watched just 4 minutes of streaming video per day. That would include commercials.

Even AT&T’s more generous DataPro 2-GB plan would allow just 35 minutes per day of streaming video (assuming you used your iPhone for nothing else), according to the carrier’s online data calculator.

Like a stopped watch, at least he’s right twice a day.

Spangler celebrates the opportunity AT&T’s overcharging scheme provides the cable industry to “grease the skids” for data caps and overpriced consumption billing on cable modem service.

In Spangler’s “Cable companies pay my salary”-world-view, it wasn’t that Time Warner Cable did the wrong thing when it tried to triple broadband pricing — to $150 a month — for the exact same level of service customers previously enjoyed.  It was all about its execution.

Spangler characterizes Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt as a victim, burned over the company’s failed overcharging experiment in 2009.  When one plays with matches, is it any surprise there are consequences?

Consumers will respond to more overcharging schemes the same way they did a year before — with overwhelming condemnation and opposition.  It’s hard to convince consumers to pay a higher price for limits on usage while telling shareholders you’ve invested less to expand your network, charged more to access it, all while the costs to provide the service have dropped dramatically.  Consumers call that out for what it is: greed.

Make no mistake, consumers hate usage caps and overpriced consumption billing and Time Warner Cable has no justification to introduce either.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC ATT Cuts Unlimited Data 6-2-10.flv[/flv]

Normally business-friendly CNBC covers the introduction of the 2 GB usage cap on AT&T smartphone data usage.  Then the CNBC anchor got skeptical about AT&T’s claims this was good news for consumers, admitting she hates overcharging schemes that deliver a surprise on the bill at the end of the month.  Lance Ulanoff, editor of PC Magazine expressed some doubts himself.  (8 minutes)