Reaction score: 460
I was thinking. Maybe it's ok. Because they would be allowing the customer to make important payments, which only can be done by https. That's the only acceptable reason. The company should be able to block all traffic, except for the one needed to pay them. Other than that, it looks bad, and it worries me. A scammer can use that tactic to redirect non-secure traffic to them. The comments found through the search engine about the number is what worries me.Doesn't seem so. Seems to be an AT&T customer care number.
But then, the whole make-up looks like a scam - although it probably isn't.
What appears to be the case, AT&T is trying to economize on postage stamps for proper customer communication, and instead hijacks the HTTP traffic to make the customers call them.
I would consider this as strictly inacceptable, and would instead send them a bill for security cleaning the computer. (I doubt they will pay that without a lawsuit, but at least a bill might be the only thing they would properly read.)
I was thinking earlier of finding the IP address, and blocking it through blacklistd.conf, and see what happens, but I won't do that. I'll just contact the # on the statement, not using the webaddress, and ask them about the number.
It would have to be certain, and there would have to be more about this from a significant amount of people. But perhaps the tactic can be explained or it can be written about if it's a scam. Anyone who deals with this would have questions, and would like to know what's going on.I would love to get this into some popular media, like WIRED or such.
I know what everyone's going to say, I'm going to stop playing around and contact them.