Imagine if the postal service started offering discount shipping in exchange for permission to scan every letter you receive and then target you with junk mail based on the contents of your personal mail.

One of the largest telecommunications companies in America, AT&T, is doing just that for customers of its super-fast gigabit broadband service, which is rolling out in select cities. Though a few months ago, it dropped the use of an undeletable “supercookie” that tracked subscribers’ web browsing activity, AT&T reportedly plans to track and monetize its broadband customers’ internet activity – “webpages you visit, the time you spend on each, the links or ads you see and follow, and the search terms you enter” – to deliver targeted “ads online, via email or through direct mail”.

The tracking and ad targeting associated with the gigabit service cannot be avoided using browser privacy settings: as AT&T explained, the program “works independently of your browser’s privacy settings regarding cookies, do-not-track and private browsing.” In other words, AT&T is performing deep packet inspection, a controversial practice through which internet service providers, by virtue of their privileged position, monitor all the internet traffic of their subscribers and collect data on the content of those communications.



What if customers do not want to be spied on by their internet service providers? AT&T allows gigabit service subscribers to opt out – for a $29 fee per month.

But charging extra for privacy has significant social justice implications: broadband access is hard to come by for many communities, and subscribers on the lower rungs of the income ladder may not be able to afford an additional fee to protect their privacy. Privacy should not be reserved for the rich, and the poor should not be forced to choose between broadband, an essential tool in modern life, and their privacy.



Moreover, it is not clear what gigabit subscribers get when they pay the $29 fee to opt out. AT&T says that it “may collect and use web browsing information for other purposes, as described in our Privacy Policy, even if you do not participate in the Internet Preferences program.” But the company’s main privacy policy also discusses tracking web browsing activity and using subscriber data for advertising purposes.

Even worse, the virtual lack of competition in the broadband market makes it difficult for many subscribers to jump to another, more privacy-protective company.

AT&T does not have a stellar track record when it comes to protecting its subscribers’ information from government intrusion, as the company’s early collaboration with the NSA proved. There is no doubt that this sort of detailed tracking piques the interest of all sorts of surveillance-minded government agencies.

There is one silver lining to this dark cloud: AT&T says it is not attempting to monitor its customers’ connections to encrypted websites (like Google, Yahoo!, Facebook and Twitter), which could endanger its customers’ security. This is small comfort, however, given the wide array of websites that do not support HTTPS by default. That includes major retailers Amazon and Barnes & Noble, which raises lifestyle and reader privacy concerns. Activity on unencrypted mobile apps is also vulnerable to AT&T tracking if the mobile device is logged onto the gigabit service via Wi-Fi.

There is one possible solution to the dilemma AT&T is forcing its subscribers into: like so many other web privacy problems, this one can be solved by encryption. By funneling their traffic through a VPN service, AT&T customers can bypass AT&T’s deep packet inspection, thus preserving their privacy. (And given that many VPNs cost far less than $29 per month, customers would save money over AT&T’s opt-out fee.)

However, customers should not be forced to take these sorts of extra precautions to protect their privacy. Internet service providers sit in an incredibly privileged position in the network. They should not be tracking subscribers’ internet activity or monetizing that activity. AT&T should be ashamed of itself for putting profit over privacy.