AT&T Rewrites its Privacy Policy

AT&T has a new privacy policy, and if you are its customer you have no choice but to accept it.

The new policy says that AT&T—not customers—owns customers’ confidential info and can use it “to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.”

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service—something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service—a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers’ recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others.

EDITED TO ADD (6/27): User Friendly on the issue.

Posted on June 23, 2006 at 6:03 AM57 Comments


Owen Blacker June 23, 2006 6:38 AM

In English law we have something called the Unfair Contract Terms Act (well, two of them, actually: a 1977 act and a 1999 act; a Google for “unfair contract terms” will pull up plenty of links, though beware that our government departments change their websites and break all the links quite frequently).

I would contest that such a clause in a contract would be rendered null and void by an English court. (Though, of course, that means someone would have to sue, though Legal Aid might be available to do so, if noone wanted to take it on pro bono.)

Do you not have anything similar in the US? I know you have no real right to privacy (other than the unreasonable searches and seizures provision in the Fourth Amendment), but surely American contract law must contain some kind of provision for one-sided contracts (like EULAs, for example)?

Clive Robinson June 23, 2006 7:02 AM

Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t one of the major ISP’s in the early days reserve copyright on all material posted (I thing it was Compuserve but I could be wrong).

If I remeber correctly they reviesed their position after it attracted sufficient bad publicity.

Anonymous June 23, 2006 7:04 AM

Clearly a preparation for total telecommunications surveillance.
I wonder when numbers of more knowledgeable americans start migrating to other countries.
Are there any telecommunication providers left that protect their customers privacy?

Clive Robinson June 23, 2006 7:21 AM


As far as I am aware only The Republic of Ireland has laws protecting electronic communications privacy.

Also Germany has other laws to protect their citizens that was put in place after WWII, that should cover electronic privacy as well.

Mark June 23, 2006 7:32 AM

I’m not a lawyer, but….

Wouldn’t this just make the plaintifs in any future suit all the non-AT&T customers who were called by the AT&T customers who agreed to the policy? I’m not an AT&T customer and I don’t agree with their policy, but if one of their customers calls me they’re claiming they own my information! I don’t think so!

Ale June 23, 2006 7:49 AM

‘AT&T’s Britton said the 1984 law doesn’t apply to his company’s video service because AT&T isn’t a cable provider. “We are not building a cable TV network,” he said. “We’re building an Internet protocol television network.” ‘

This is the lamest excuse to exploit holes in outdated legislation that I have ever read. If they were going to throw away the privacy of their customers, it would have been fair for them to do it openly. Trying to weasel out an explanation like this is just pathetic.

arl June 23, 2006 8:05 AM

If I were one of thier customers I would still have a choice, to change providers. But most people won’t care and so it goes.

David June 23, 2006 8:13 AM

Which option would you choose?

a) Best of breed Cellphone service that works where the competition doesn’t, and works best in a disaster, and is competitively priced

b) Cellphone service that has a great privacy policy but none of the above service features

Unfortunately, you and your company have little choice but to choose a.

Shura June 23, 2006 8:32 AM

@David: are you seriously trying to say that AT&T is the only company offering an acceptable service?

Mike Sherwood June 23, 2006 8:39 AM

All personal data is valuable and routinely sold for marketing purposes. This just looks like AT&T finally caught on to that fact and wants to be the one making the money from it. I doubt there’s anything anyone can do to make them stop doing this. It’s just too profitable.

The annoying part about this is it’s hard to poison their database. I routinely misstate my income in various places where it’s requested. Declining to give information isn’t as effective as giving corrupt information. However, if they’re tracking what you’re watching, it’s hard to have it register something else and not register what you’re watching.

The interesting part is that they’re doing something that cable and satellite companies aren’t allowed to do. I have to wonder if there’s some regulatory agency that should be pressured into reviewing AT&T’s circumvention of their rules.

Andrew W June 23, 2006 8:51 AM

@Owen: We in the U.S. do have a few specific protections with regard to contracts but nothing along the lines of an overarching screwing-your-customers-as-a-term-of-service protection.

I keep thinking about the “privacy as contextual integrity” article Bruce linked to earlier this month. If a violation of privacy were enshrined in law as the taking of personal information out of its original context, AT&T’s new terms of service wouldn’t be legal.

Michael R. Farnum June 23, 2006 8:51 AM

arl said it. Most people will simply comply and keep going. It is a non-issue to the vast majority, just as the NSA taps and other spying are a non-issue. To them, it just makes common sense for the government to collect data to fight terrorists. And it makes sense that they have to go to AT&T or any other carrier to get it. Look for many of the major carriers to follow suit very soon.

Michael R. Farnum June 23, 2006 8:52 AM

arl said it. Most people will simply comply and keep going. It is a non-issue to the vast majority, just as the NSA taps and other spying are a non-issue. To them, it just makes common sense for the government to collect data to fight terrorists. And it makes sense that they have to go to AT&T or any other carrier to get it. Look for many of the major carriers to follow suit very soon.

Steve. June 23, 2006 8:52 AM

@Mike Sherwood:

For non pay-per-view content, you could program your DVR to record things you’re not interested in, thus providing false viewing information. But as you say, you can’t generally hide what you actually are watching, all you can do is hope it doesn’t stand out of the false data.

If it was cable, then you could hide the fact that you’ve watched a show by switching channels well in advance (and not surfing during the commercials). Then anyone tracking your viewing habits from the cable end would probably assume that the show you actually watched was the one that was on at the time youy switched – they can’t know whether you then continued watching (or, with a DVR, recording), or turned the TV off. I don’t know whether that tactic will be viable with AT&T’s service, though: does it deliver continuous channels, or individual shows? Even if there are channels, is it normal to continue receiving if you aren’t watching, or will they believe that everything you receive, you watch?

Ed T. June 23, 2006 8:55 AM

Well, I for one am glad that I don’t live in an area where SBC/AT&T is the local telco. And, I can assure you I won’t be one of their video service customers in the future.


Ron Englehard June 23, 2006 9:01 AM

“if you are its customer you have no choice but to accept it…”

It seems to me that if you feel in any way strongly about your privacy you have no choice but not to be an AT&T customer.

Vote with your wallets people. Let AT&T know that you will pay for privacy, but not for exploitation.

AG June 23, 2006 9:15 AM

I’m proud to be an American,
because at least I know they are listening to me.
And it’s hard to hide the pride inside that makes we want to say,
“Everybody GIVE UP your privacy, after all what do you have to hide?”
Because you know by CENSORED I love this land
CENSORED bless the USA.

Brian June 23, 2006 9:26 AM

surely American contract law must contain
some kind of provision for one-sided
contracts (like EULAs, for example)?

Yes, it does. IANAL, but my understanding is that such contracts can be challenged. Whether the challenge succeeds or fails is far from certain.

See also: Contracts of adhesion

jmr June 23, 2006 9:26 AM

At first, I was glad I’m not an AT&T customer. Then, I realized that AT&T = Cingular. Dammit!

Jarrod June 23, 2006 9:38 AM


That was prodigy that attempted to grab copyright. And yes, it was a dismal failure.


Cingular is not part of AT&T. When AT&T sold AT&T Wireless, Cingular bought it and merged it in its entirety. That’s not to say that AT&T doesn’t own stock in Cingular (they own 60% of it), but the operations of the two companies are separate, and they maintain separate privacy policies.

In any case, you can, of course, switch to another company and still take your number with you.

Itsover Gohome June 23, 2006 9:39 AM

Warn people before you joke!
Americans voting with wallets – I blew coffee through my nose! That’s not going to happen: can’t you hear the sheep? We live amongst them.

Andre LePlume June 23, 2006 9:43 AM


The policy says that the stuff AT+T is alleged to have given to the NSA are business records. This allows AT+T to say, “hey — we didn’t give away anything of yours Mr. Customer, we gave away our property”.

“Customer data” here does not mean “contents of your email”, it means “information maintained by AT+T regarding every single email you sent, when, and to whom”

Des June 23, 2006 9:45 AM

I’ll probably be moving sometime in the next few months, and when I do, I certainly won’t be taking my AT&T phone/DSL service with me. I’ll also be telling them, in no uncertain terms, why.

roy June 23, 2006 9:54 AM

Actually, SBC bought AT&T to use its good name to hide behind, much as AlliedSignal took Honeywell’s name.

My landline provider is AT&T, not by my choice, but by government decree. The only way I can opt of the monopoly is to terminate my landline service. Going to cell service would be no improvement, since AT&T will soon end up controlling or owning every cell service.

AG June 23, 2006 10:01 AM

We can all agree that the Internet has grown into our lives?
More of your life is done online everyday. You converse with your work, family, and friends. You entertain, work, and live more of your life online everyday.

The logically as a greater percentage of people live a greater part of their life online groups will become communities, communities will become nations.

These nations which we are building (without any forethought to what we are creating) are where our grandchildren will live there lives.

Do we want companies, governments, etc to be able to view every aspect of their lives?

alien June 23, 2006 10:13 AM

Canada has the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) which protects citizens from corporate abuse.

Tim June 23, 2006 10:13 AM

@Marko: Thanks for the link.

I’m skeptical of this. I just read the policy at and can’t find this wording anywhere in it. Lazarus mentions a new policy effective Friday (the one I read was marked as updated June 16, 2006), but where is he getting his information? This story is all over the place, but everyone is quoting the same article.

Ale June 23, 2006 10:25 AM

I could not find it either.

I agree with the “virtualization of civilization” idea. In fact, that is one of the reasons RFID deployment needs to be checked closely: it connects the real vith the virtual in a completely new way.

aikimark June 23, 2006 10:40 AM

What about those of us non-AT&T folks who happen to call someone who IS an AT&T customer? I haven’t agreed to the AT&T policy. I haven’t signed any waiver of release or consent.

What about long distance carriers who use some of the AT&T trunks? Is this new AT&T policy hidden from us by layers of inter-corporate relationships?

What we need is a groundswell of support like we had for the nation-wide no call list to ban telemarketers. Since there isn’t competition at the local level and the federal government has OKed most every merger and acquisition in the past 20 years, we are at the mercy of the corporations.


Rich June 23, 2006 10:43 AM

I had AT&T as a cell provider in 2002/2003. Service/price was good, but they kept sending me marketing email, even though I repeatedly ‘opted-out’ online, and called them, and the poor phone staff kept saying they turned off all marketing indicators they could find.

So I switched.

But I waited until my contract was up so I wouldn’t have to pay the $175 penalty.

So- if you have a choice, and refuse the new terms, anyone think they’ll waive the early cancellation penalty without a legal fight?

Alan June 23, 2006 11:31 AM

If one side can aribtrarily alter a contract, then it is not a contract. I just wish the fscking Libretarians would figure this out. (And I mean you Declan!)

Zian June 23, 2006 11:33 AM

@Tim, Ale, et al
The link is
So the article is correct.

By the way, the policy only applies to AT&T Yahoo! Dial, AT&T Yahoo! DSL, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet U-verse Enabled, AT&T Yahoo! Small Business, and AT&T Yahoo! GeoCities customers (feel free to substitute SBC for AT&T as needed).

Ale June 23, 2006 12:47 PM


Thank you for the link. I did read a privacy policy page on the SBC Yahoo site, but I guess it was the previous version (I googled).

another_bruce June 23, 2006 1:06 PM

is there even a limit to the amount of abuse the average american phone customer is willing to take from telcos?

++Don June 23, 2006 1:25 PM


Yes, AT&T owns 60% of Cingular. The other 40% is owned by BellSouth, which is in the process of being bought by AT&T. At that point, Cingular will be 100% owned by AT&T and will probably be rebranded under the AT&T name. I strongly suspect that there will be a realignment of the Cingular privacy policy at that point.

Irina June 23, 2006 3:29 PM

I can’t say that I’m surprised. I used to work for the Dutch branch of AT&T as a temp, got offered a permanent job, and declined because what I’d been doing as a temp was typing the job contracts that stated that whatever an employee does in their free time is the responsibility of the company. That is to say, if you have the wrong hobby, you can be fired.

TimH June 23, 2006 4:10 PM

“Personal identifying information shared between Cingular® Wireless or and other AT&T family of company members will be used and protected as set forth in this policy. “

Andrew June 23, 2006 4:36 PM

What a great way to make sure that I will never, ever be an AT&T customer again. Smooth move, guys.

Oh, wait, my local phone service is provided by AT&T? Only by default . . . isn’t competition wonderful?

A Russian in Ushanka June 24, 2006 4:35 PM

For the first fking time in my fcking life im so damn happy i was born in Russia and did not move to USA when a chance presented. I am happy, goddamit!

Thank you very much, Bush, AT&T, and NSA, which now looks so cutting edge similar to our “beloved” KGB that it is almost copyright infringement (After all, we might set up some documents setting up KGB-style activity as intelectual property, cant we)

Take care and pass my hi-s to the Big Bro!

Mr Pond. June 25, 2006 7:09 AM

Whilst I hate to be overly flippand about what is an important subject… I wonder how many of AT&T’s top executives actually use the service they promote?

erasmus June 25, 2006 6:36 PM

From its social responsibility page on its corporate website for investors:
“AT&T governance practices require honest and ethical conduct in all of its business operations.” …

Jerry Brenner June 26, 2006 2:55 AM

What happens to my personal data if I call someone who uses AT & T? I’ve lost my privacy because AT & T owns my data as well? What percentage of calls in the US go through AT & T regardless of who the company is the end user chooses I wonder.

HATE ATT June 26, 2006 7:00 AM

Have had SBC, and was so disgusted getting a separate bill from ATT for long distance, when used it maybe once every 4-6 months. Called and complained, and they stopped it. Now of all things SCB has merged with SBC Yahoo. Had DSL with them and have hassled with them for being overbilled. When have called, get some foreign speaking person whom can’t understand. Since on disability, they have pressured me into sending in a form with SSS # to get a $7.00 deduction which I won’t do. Paying for unlisted, they have given out my phone # to a few people who I get death threats from. Have been hit over the hed 3 times. Ended up in the ER from the one and sent home with them saying nothing was wrong. After crawling on the floor a moth, and made it to walk in clinic, had broken pelvis. Instead of preying on people like I and others, why don’t they go after these predators, sex molestors? Is going to cost me $99 to cancel DSL.. Oh geez, now am getting scanned: going thru UU net and then. AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1) –
AT&T Worldnet Services ATTSVI-12-122-0-0 (NET-12-122-0-0-1) –
And not even using their services. DSL or dialup that is. When have been on their DSL got DOD, Haliburton scans frequently. Dang, like I am a terrorist…Born and raised in the US, christian, Can’t even check sites about medical, etc. Was happy and felt safe in the US, but now it’s like the person above said KGB, and socialism. Dang, if can only find another company. <have bookmarked this site to keep up on all posts. TY for those wom have put the URL’s up. Have been watching other sites about ATT ad this is the BEST!
Thanks folks.

Hate ATT

B-Con June 26, 2006 2:22 PM

^ That’s one of the funnier strips I’ve seen in a while.

I think everyone’s overrating the situation. Personally, I think this is just an excuse for AT&T executives to harvest porn downloaded by their customers.

ken Strang June 26, 2006 6:37 PM

Until people make a metashift in their thinking about privacy, this AT&T grab of personal info will only be the first of many. I suggest that people, the original legal persons, should have all the same rights as the second type of legal person, i.e. corporations. This would then mean that people own the information that pertains to them. I.E. this information is the same as Private Property, or Proprietory information that corporations prize highly. At the very least people are not sheep grazing on the commons to be fleeced by anyone. They have the same legal rights as any other legal person, Mr. incorporated or not. And anticipating future technology that real people, not Mr. INc, also own absolutely, and by full copyright, all this information and this includes their images however the means of the pictures being taken. thanks.

Hate ATT June 27, 2006 1:12 AM

B-Con.. so true, not only to harvest the porn but people’s names, SS#’s etc. I personally don’t feel everyone is overrating this situation. Stop telemarketers..yeah sure, received 5 more today. And am on DO NOT CALL list. How about all the stupid snail mail we get from ATT-SBC? Our kids and their kids getting stalked, killed. The servicemen, etc suffering ID theft. Have to quote erasmus here. “AT&T governance practices require honest and ethical conduct in all of its business operations.” I place emphasis on require! So it says… Am all for the gov. getting the terrorists, predators, paedophiles, drug traffickers, scammers etc. But needs to be a “STOP” when it comes to ATT stealing money from law abiding people on limited incomes. Am sure many of you know and have parents, grandparents who are struggiling to pay bills. Food, medicine, etc.
Those whom are blaming Bush for all of this:
Clinton also used the IRS to go after every conservative group in the country. And individuals as well.

Am a conservative Republican in the USA and Proud of it!

Ziggy September 15, 2006 3:24 PM

I actually terminated my service with AT&T because of this and the spying debacle. When they quizzed me about why I was stopping service, I explained how their recent changes to their privacy policy were unacceptable. The woman on the phone (and another who followed up a few weeks later) could not understand what I was talking about, or at least why it would matter at all. Very telling, I suppose.

Anonymous February 20, 2007 3:35 PM

Dear Friend,

I introduce myself as Mark .H. Wildman, Global Head of Offshore Banking at Deutsche Bank. A contracted staff of Perez and Hamilton contacted you earlier concerning Mr. Moser Arrington and an investment placed under our banks management 9 years ago.
I would respectfully request that you keep the contents of this mail confidential and respect the integrity of the information you come by as a result of this mail. I contact you independently of our investigation and emphasize the reason of this communication. I would like to intimate you with certain facts that I believe would be of interest to you.

In 1996 the subject matter; Moser came to our bank to engage in business discussions with our private banking division. He informed us that he had a financial portfolio of Nineteen million United States dollars, which he wished to have us turn over (invest) on his behalf. I was the officer assigned to his case, I made numerous suggestions in line with my duties as the de-facto global head of the Offshore banking sector, especially given the volume of funds he wished to put into our bank.

We met on numerous occasions prior to any investments being placed. I encouraged him to consider various growth funds with prime ratings. The favored route in my advise to customers is to start by assessing data on 6000 traditional stocks and bond managers and 2000 managers of alternative investments popularly known as hedge Funds based on my advice, We spun the money around various opportunities and made attractive margins for our first months of operation, the accrued profit and interest stood at this point at over 19.37 million United States Dollars, this margin was not the full potential of the fund but he desired low risk guaranteed returns on investments.

In mid 1997, he asked that the money be liquidated because he needed to make an urgent investment requiring cash payments in Antwerp. He directed that I liquidate the funds and had it deposited with a firm in Spain. I informed him that Deutsche Bank would have to make special arrangements to have this done and in order not to circumvent due process, the bank would have to make a 2.5 % deduction from the funds to cater for banking and statutory charges. He complained about the charges but later came around when I explained to him the complexities of the task he was asking of us, he was more worried about the heavy taxation the European Union might impose and also to avoid dual taxation from European member countries.

Cash movement across borders has become especially strict since the incidents of 9/11. I contacted my affiliate in Spain and had the funds available in mainland Europe. I undertook all the processes and made sure I followed his precise instructions to the letter and had the funds deposited at the Madrid based security consultancy firm, Imperial Asset Management Company. Imperial Asset Management Company is a private firm that accepts deposits from high net worth individuals and blue chip corporations that handle valuable products or undertake transactions that need immediate access to cash. This small and highly private organization is familiar especially to the highly placed and well-connected organizations. In Line with instructions, the money was deposited with Imperial Asset Management Company.

Moser told me he wanted the money there in anticipation of his arrival from Norway later that week. This was the last communication we had, this transpired around 27th September 1997. In June last year, we got a call from Imperial Asset Management Company informing us of the inactivity of that particular portfolio. This was an astounding position as far as I was concerned, given the fact that I was still in the Offshore banking sector I’m the only one other than Tony Dupan who himself is on a year’s leave of absence and is now a visiting lecturer at the London School Of Economics still works for the bank as we both served on the sub-committee on Mr. Moser’s portfolio initially who knew about the deposit at Imperial Asset Management Company, and I could not understand why Moser had not come forward to claim his deposit. We made futile efforts to locate Moser.

I immediately passed the task of locating him to the internal investigations department of Deutsche Bank. Four days later, information started to trickle in, apparently Moser was dead. A person who suited his description was declared dead of a heart attack in Canne, South of France. We were soon enough able to identify the body and cause of death was confirmed. The bank immediately launched an investigation into possible surviving next of kin to alert about the situation and also to come forward to claim his estate. If you are familiar with Offshore banking affairs, those who patronize our services usually prefer anonymity, but also some levels of detachment from conventional processes.

In his bio-data form, he listed no next of kin. In the field of offshore banking, opening an account with us means no one will know of its existence, accounts are rarely held under a name; depositors use numbers and codes to make the accounts anonymous. This bank also gives the choice to depositors of having their mail sent to them or held at the bank itself, ensuring that there are no traces of the account and as I said, rarely do they nominate next of kin. Offshore Banking clients apart from not nominating next of kin also usually in most cases leave wills in our care, in this case; Moser died interstate. In line with our internal processes for account holders who have passed away, we instituted our own investigations in good faith to determine who should have right to claim the estate.

This investigation has for the past months been unfruitful. We have scanned every continent and used our private investigation affiliate companies to get to the root of the problem. It is this investigation that resulted in my being furnished with your details as a possible relative of the deceased. My official capacity dictates that my department supervises the eventual outcome of the investigation. You had unfortunately declared that you are in no way affiliated with this individual. What this means, you being the last batch of names we had considered, is that our dear late fellow died with no known or identifiable family member. This leaves you as the only person with the full picture of what the prevailing situation is in relation to the deposit and the late beneficiary of the deposit.

According to practice, Imperial Asset Management Company will by the end of this year broadcast a request for statements of claim to Deutsche Bank, failing to receive viable claims they will most probably revert the deposit back to Deutsche Bank. This will result in the money entering the Deutsche Bank accounting system and the portfolio will be out of my hands and out of the Offshore banking division. This will not happen if I have my way. What I wish to relate to you will smack of unethical practice but I want you to understand something. It is only an outsider to the banking world who finds the internal politics of the banking world aberrational.

The world of offshore banking especially is fraught with huge rewards for those who occupy certain offices and oversee certain portfolios. You should have begun by now to put together the general direction of what I propose. There is US$ 19,370, 000.00 deposited in Madrid, I have the deposit details and they will release the deposit to no one unless under directives from my office, as far as Deutsche Bank is concerned, the transaction with Moser concluded when the funds were sent to Spain, All outstanding interactions in relation to the file are just routine and due process. Imperial Asset Management Company has no single idea of what’s the history or nature of the deposit.
They are simply awaiting instructions to release the deposit to any party that comes forward as the beneficiary this is the situation. This bank has spent great amounts of money trying to track this manna family; they have investigated for years and have found no family. The investigation had been concluded and closed a while back not until our recent search.

My proposal; you share similar details to the late fellow; I am prepared to place you in a position to instruct Imperial Asset Management Company to release the deposit to you as the closest surviving relation. Upon receipt of the deposit, I am prepared to share the money with you as the beneficiary that is: I will simply nominate you as the next of kin and have them release the deposit to you.

You will get 30% of $19.37 million while I take 70%. I would have gone ahead to ask the funds be released to me, but that would have drawn a straight line to me and my involvement in claiming the deposit. But on the other hand, you with the same name as the original depositor would easily pass as the beneficiary with right to claim. I assure you that I could have the deposit released to you within a few days no later than 10 business days. I will simply inform the bank of the final closing of the file relating to Moser. I will then officially communicate with Imperial Asset Management Company and instruct them to release the deposit to you. With these two things: all is done.
The alternative would be for us to have Imperial Asset Management Company send the funds to another bank with you as account holder. This way there will be no need for you to think of receiving the money from Imperial Asset Management Company.

We can fine-tune this based on our interactions. I am aware of the consequences of this proposal. I ask that if you find no interest in this project that you should reconsider your position. I ask that you do not be too hasty to draw up conclusions as I have put in a lot of effort into this and your role will be only that of a benefactor.

You may not know this but people like myself who have made tidy sums out of comparable situations run the whole Offshore sector and in my profession this is not an uncommon practice as one might think I do not find against good conscience, this may be hard for you to understand, but the dynamics of my industry dictates that I make this move. Such opportunities only come ones way once in a lifetime. We should not let this chance pass us by, for once I find myself in total control of my destiny. I am a family man and this is an opportunity to provide them with new opportunities.

There is a reward for this project and it is a task well worth undertaking. I have evaluated the risks and the risks on your side is barely minimal because hundreds of claims are filed everyday at the claims and deposits departments so it’s not an unusual practice that may raise eye-brows I am the only one who knows of this situation, good fortune has blessed you with a name that has planted you into the center of relevance in my life.

Let’s share the blessing. If you find yourself able to work with me, contact me through this same email account. I do not particularly know you so I would wait on your response to judge your level of transparency and honesty need not you disappear after the money gets into your coffers with a level of understanding between us I will start the initiation of this process towards a conclusion. I do not want you contacting me through my official phone lines nor do I want you contacting me through my official email account, as this transaction will not be done under the clock of my employer.

Contact will be through my personal numbers and also through this email address; same could apply to you if you wish. My official lines are not secure lines as they are periodically monitored to assess our level of customer care in line with our Total Quality Management Policy. A very dear friend of mine and university classmate Mr. Michael Soden of Bank Of Ireland had to quit his job in May when unethical material was found on his office computer during a routine maintenance of his machine and the results of the internal investigation were leaked to the local press seriously denting his career after all the service, good work and sacrifice he had given the industry.

Please observe this instruction religiously. Please, Again, note I am a family man. I have wife and children. I send you this mail not without a measure of doubt as to what the consequences, but I know within me that nothing ventured is nothing gained and that success and riches never come easy or on a platter of gold. This is the one truth I have learnt from my private banking clients.
Do not betray my confidence. If we can be of one accord, we should plan a meeting soon.

I await your response.

Please kindly get to me true my Private contact

+44 702 406 9752


Bill September 8, 2007 10:16 AM

I worked for AT&T for 5 years in management and just recently left them. You cannot possibly imagine or fathom the disorganization and arrogance in that company. I couldn’t take it anymore. They are a protected monopoly and filled with unmotivated employees that are looking for a “safe” place to work until they retire. They aren’t exactly getting the cream of the crop; this is true from the bottom to the top position. Without the monopoly protection they would go out of business in 12 months. The humorous part is that the management has lulled themselves into thinking that they are really something. No, the federal government has removed your competition whether you want to admit that or not. I would suggest you go elsewhere to find your phone/internet/tv hookups. It would be hard to do worse than AT&T in my opinion.

Leave a comment


Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.