dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to El Quintron

Premium Member

to El Quintron

Re: CRTC wants public help on new wireless rules

Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by elwoodblues:

Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!

Limiting contracts would certainly go a long way to improving our competitive situation... so it's a start.

BTW
@videotron.ca

BTW to elwoodblues

Anon

to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!

A lot is in that ToS.
Such as Rogers/Videotrons right to determine if you have a right to privacy.

Ref:
»Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
»SaskTel Under Privacy Investigation
»[Internet] Warning - you can be locked out of your own videotron
»Rogers privacy violation contributes to divorce

Now, elwoodblues, I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on some of these issues, but, your rights shouldn't be tossed by some ridiculous ramblings in a ToS that will cost you the same price as a house to fight, while a company says, "Well, it's written in our 475,000 word ToS that says so".

This is just one example of rights people lose, even though it shouldn't happen. It's wrong.... While a company hides... This should be preventable and a company held accountable.

While one or two of examples (links) above are in regards to non-wireless, the same can happen in wireless. No difference really.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

said by BTW :

said by elwoodblues:

Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!

A lot is in that ToS.
Such as Rogers/Videotrons right to determine if you have a right to privacy.

Ref:
»Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
»SaskTel Under Privacy Investigation
»[Internet] Warning - you can be locked out of your own videotron
»Rogers privacy violation contributes to divorce

Now, elwoodblues, I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on some of these issues, but, your rights shouldn't be tossed by some ridiculous ramblings in a ToS that will cost you the same price as a house to fight, while a company says, "Well, it's written in our 475,000 word ToS that says so".

This is just one example of rights people lose, even though it shouldn't happen. It's wrong.... While a company hides... This should be preventable and a company held accountable.

While one or two of examples (links) above are in regards to non-wireless, the same can happen in wireless. No difference really.

The TOS's haven't been tested in court yet,they have in the US and SCOTUS has sided with the corporations. Despite Harper's best efforts our SCC is nothing like the US, but we need a class action law suit (even though the TOS says you can't sue them) to test this mouseprint.

BTW
@videotron.ca

BTW

Anon

said by elwoodblues:

but we need a class action law suit (even though the TOS says you can't sue them) to test this mouseprint.

Any part of a ToS that states you have to go to arbitration and can't sue or go to court is not valid in Quebec. This already went to court and they came down on the Telco stating, "you don't get to decide who has rights and who doesn't, we do."

This also occurred in Ontario approx 2-3 years later, after the Quebec verdict, when someone tried to sue Dell and Dell has the arbitration clause. The people won (it was a class action I believe against Dell, the ref to both should be on Geists site that I recall).

So now to touch base on what you stated. Not true at all, and they have been tested in court. However, Canadian courts have so far put a value of almost nil (zip, zero, nada) on privacy and privacy breaches.

In addition, the CRTC seems to think privacy is not their issue. Case in point when they told the priv commissioner to comment on DPI at the CRTC hearings and the priv commish stated to their face, privacy as it pertains to the laws in Canada does fall under your control as stated in the Telcom Act, and you already have the power to enforce Canadian privacy legislation.

Again, this is only one example as it pertains to privacy in a ToS. Not the entire gambit of issues to do with privacy. Many more issues falls under this one little topic they are asking for comments on.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

said by BTW :

This also occurred in Ontario approx 2-3 years later, after the Quebec verdict, when someone tried to sue Dell and Dell has the arbitration clause. The people won (it was a class action I believe against Dell, the ref to both should be on Geists site that I recall).

... and I believe shortly after Ontario actually legislated one's right to take a party to court rather than being forced into binding arbitration despite it stating so in a ToS.

So yeah, this is really a non-issue in Canada despite what happened in the United States.

BTW
@videotron.ca

BTW to elwoodblues

Anon

to elwoodblues
ok so the above example aside. Let's look at another privacy issue not mentioned in the ToS's.

Another privacy issue that is not at all evident in ToS's are how some Telco's will install (either factory installed or telco installed) spyware. An example of this is Carrier IQ.

Rogers denied having Carrier IQ installed on their devices (and bragged about being clean on mobilesyrup.com). But, as it turned out, this wasn't true at all and Rogers had to admit Carrier IQ was indeed installed on devices.

Ref:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca ··· ttention
»www.theregister.co.uk/20 ··· ing_app/

So, if the CRTC want's people to be aware of everything with very simple words, again this is an opportunity where they have to mandate that if Rogers is going to install/sell spyware & key-loggers on peoples devices, then people should be made aware of this in very easy to understand terms:

Example of what should be said to people who buy a device with a key-logger on it in plain english:
"Rogers had installed a key-logger spyware on your device."

Simple as that.

If it's being shipped on ios devices and Rogers has no control over it then that too needs to be stated:
"ios devices have a key-logger spyware software installed".

Simple as that.

If the CRTC is looking for comments on ToS and wants the public informed and public participation then all should be on the table for people to know and for people to make an informed choice.

Companies shouldn't get away with this, or lie to people by saying something like this isn't installed.

I know I would want my money back from Rogers if I had one of those devices with that installed on it. And the CRTC should make sure there is an avenue for that, or some kind of recourse for people should this happen again. No diff than the Sony Rootkit scandal.

Again, this is just one another issue under the privacy heading of the ToS.

BACONATOR26
Premium Member
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON

BACONATOR26

Premium Member

Privacy falls under the Privacy Commissioner's mandate. The CRTC has no role in that.

BTW
@videotron.ca

BTW

Anon

said by BACONATOR26:

Privacy falls under the Privacy Commissioner's mandate. The CRTC has no role in that.

Wrong.

Telecom Act states privacy falls under them for Telecom.

Privacy Commissioner may be the boss heading PrivCom, but the telecom Act clearly states Privacy as it pertains to telecom *also* falls under the jurisdiction of the CRTC.

Privacy Commissioner even stated so to them in writing during the DPI debates when they (the CRTC) told the Privacy Commissioner to reply in writing. You can look this up since it's on public record.
BTW

BTW to BACONATOR26

Anon

to BACONATOR26
Click for full size
From PrivCom to CRTC
In addition to what I stated about you being wrong, I went the extra mile for you so you can see a tiny bit of the FAX the CRTC recieved from the Privacy Commissioner.

Hope this helps steer you away from thinking the CRTC has nothing to do with privacy.

See screen shot above...

As stated above, this is already on public record that the ACT and their mandate includes privacy and they have an obligation to protect and oversee it in telecom.