dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8825
share rss forum feed

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 recommendation

Why is Tek still keeping logs???

This is a sub-topic that has suddenly become extremely relevant with all the lawsuits coming our way. That's why I am pushing it front and center. Let's analyze the reasons why an ISP may keep communication logs (I am purposely excluding billing logs which cannot tie a given IP with a user, such as connection times, billing address, etc.).

1 - Technical reasons. Yes, it is obvious that if there are tech issues (mainly people somehow abusing the system) or technical malfunctions, it would be convenient to have such logs. However, they are not necessary. For example, in Sweden almost all the ISPs simply do not log anything. Period. If technical issues arise, they specifically log the issue or the person from that time on until the problem is solved. So, there are no valid technical reasons to keep ANY log whatsoever on an ongoing basis as a routine operation.

2 - Legal reasons. I am not a lawyer but had my share of regulation analyzing. I just read the current copyright law and can find no place, whatsoever, where it indicates that an ISP *must* keep logs of any kind all the time, short of mandated by a judge (e.g. a specific IP is being sued by a rights owner and then it must be logged and existing logs retained). So, there are no valid legal reasons to keep ANY log whatsoever on an ongoing basis as a routine operation.

Comments: in countries where stupid copyright laws have been passed, the ISPs simply decided NOT to log anything. Period. This has worked wonderfully in Sweden, for example, for many years. And yes, I am aware of the new law that just kicked-in forcing them to log.... for which reason they are converting into VPNs which are log-free (legaly).

I can only hope that Tek finally understands that it is in THEIR best interest, not to log anything. If they had no logs, they would not be in this mess to begin with, AND, neither would be their customers.

On this subject, since Tek has retained counsel on this subject, why not ask this very counsel if my suspicion, this is no logging is required by law, is true?

My suspicion is that Tek is not really interesting in serving its customers. Sure, they may have retained counsel, but for what purposes? Mark's blogs said it clearly: "If you are targeted in one of these actions, we urge you to seek your own legal advice. That is your choice and responsibility. We need you to understand that we are unable to assist you legally."

In other words, tough luck buddy, even though we don't have to log, we will and we don't really care if you get into a mess because of us.

Tek first, clients second.... a far... far second...


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

They are not required to keep logs for copyright alone. There are other illegal ways to use the internet that law enforcement has requested this information be retained. And it should be, and it should be available to law enforcement through court order with evidence showing wrong doing.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

2 - Legal reasons. I am not a lawyer but had my share of regulation analyzing. I just read the current copyright law and can find no place, whatsoever, where it indicates that an ISP *must* keep logs of any kind all the time, short of mandated by a judge (e.g. a specific IP is being sued by a rights owner and then it must be logged and existing logs retained). So, there are no valid legal reasons to keep ANY log whatsoever on an ongoing basis as a routine operation.

Try checking under other laws. There are legal reasons that aren't related to copyright that might require the keeping of IP logs.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to Samgee

said by Samgee:

They are not required to keep logs for copyright alone. There are other illegal ways to use the internet that law enforcement has requested this information be retained. And it should be, and it should be available to law enforcement through court order with evidence showing wrong doing.

Excuse me but: "law enforcement has requested this information be retained", who *exactly* is "law enforcement"????

If it is just cops, then it is NOT *legally* binding. Tek does NOT have to log. They are simply co-operating voluntarily. They DO NOT have to log anything.

If I am mistaken, the please produce the law or its regulations pointing at mandatory logs.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to bt

said by bt:

Try checking under other laws. There are legal reasons that aren't related to copyright that might require the keeping of IP logs.

Yes, and I can't find any. Actually all the laws I know of are *very* biased against having logs for privacy issues, such as PIPEDA.

Again, since Tek retained counsel, they should ask the counsel if there are actually any laws that require them to keep logs. I would be *extremely* surprised if there are any.

This is not to say that a lawyer may *recommend* keeping logs for CYA purposes. Then again, if this is the case it shows Tek's true colors.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

Tek does NOT have to log. They are simply co-operating voluntarily. They DO NOT have to log anything.

You said you're not a lawyer, so how can you make such a definite claim in regards to all of the laws on the books that could relate to this?

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by bt:

said by globus9991:

Tek does NOT have to log. They are simply co-operating voluntarily. They DO NOT have to log anything.

You said you're not a lawyer, so how can you make such a definite claim in regards to all of the laws on the books that could relate to this?

Because I have been dealing with similar laws in an IT environment for... uh... 20 or so years. All the information I have at hand indicates that they DO NOT have to log. Again, they have retained counsel. Was this question posed to counsel and what *exactly* was the answer? If Tek is *so* transparent then I see no reason not to post such answer publicly. It is certainly NOT financially-sensitive information. To the contrary, it can be quite financially rewarding having Tek publicly declare that they will keep no logs and hence *really* protecting their customers.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
reply to globus9991

One reason for actually keeping logs is in the event that you as a customer are having connection problems. While not essential, it's can help. Especially if UBB raises its ugly head again (and is for DSL).


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by sbrook:

One reason for actually keeping logs is in the event that you as a customer are having connection problems. While not essential, it's can help. Especially if UBB raises its ugly head again (and is for DSL).

"not essential" thank you for making my point. I am not saying that by keeping logs their job isn't easy. All I am saying is that they are NOT required to keep them and as to practicality, many othere ISPs are doing just that and doing just fine, thank you very much.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23

Logs or no logs, I'm very happy with how open Tek has been about this issue. Personally I'd rather they not log unless a customer is experiencing issues or is under criminal investigation where those logs might help.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 edit

said by JMJimmy:

Logs or no logs, I'm very happy with how open Tek has been about this issue. Personally I'd rather they not log unless a customer is experiencing issues or is under criminal investigation where those logs might help.

Well, truthfully, I'll give them that. However, what's the point of being open *after* they screw-up and continue to screw-up *after* the consequences are known?

No, no. Let's call a spade a spade. At this point Tek does not give a rat's a** about customers. Sure, they did not have to e-mail affected people (that was kind of nice but meaningless), but at the same time, *they* caused the problem to begin with. I don't see any remorse or willingness to fix the issue. Do you?

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

TSI is handling this near-perfectly. I too wish they kept no logs but I acknowledge there are probably business, legal and technical support issues that make IP logging necessary, or at least prudent. Maybe TSI can move to shorter retention periods, maybe they can't. But they've been completely up-front about what they do, so now it's up to me to decide what to do about it.

If you want total anonymity, get a VPN. Don't expect an ISP to change everything they do in order to help hide your illegal activities.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

said by The Mongoose:

TSI is handling this near-perfectly. I too wish they kept no logs but I acknowledge there are probably business, legal and technical support issues that make IP logging necessary, or at least prudent. Maybe TSI can move to shorter retention periods, maybe they can't. But they've been completely up-front about what they do, so now it's up to me to decide what to do about it.

Here we go again. As I explained above, there are NO *valid* business / technical or legal reasons to keep logs. Please don't repeat this without arguments to support your point of view.

Tek was up-front, well, sort of. As soon as you ask them a question remotely related to legal they suddenly become mute. This topic is sufficient proof.

said by The Mongoose:

If you want total anonymity, get a VPN. Don't expect an ISP to change everything they do in order to help hide your illegal activities.

As to anonymity, I know it does not exist, I just want privacy. As to expecting them to change everything they do... you've got to be kidding! Actually I am asking why are they not doing *less*!!!

As to "illegal activities" please provide proof otherwise I demand an apology. FYI: I have not received an e-mail from Tek nor I do expect to receive one.

This subject is critical and Tek is by far not doing what it could be doing. The Swedish ISPs proved it.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by globus9991:

Here we go again. As I explained above, there are NO *valid* business / technical or legal reasons to keep logs. Please don't repeat this without arguments to support your point of view.

Opinion


KPaul

join:2007-02-08
reply to globus9991

Could there not be an option to opt out of logs?


The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to globus9991

Dupe


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to bt

said by bt:

said by globus9991:

Here we go again. As I explained above, there are NO *valid* business / technical or legal reasons to keep logs. Please don't repeat this without arguments to support your point of view.

Opinion

Seriously???
Name 1 Canadian Law that demands mandatory logging.
Name 1 Tech Issue that cannot be logged after the fact to solve the issue (i.e. if the issue is gone, why log? / if the issue is still there, the logs will catch it).

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

As to "illegal activities" please provide proof otherwise I demand an apology. FYI: I have not received an e-mail from Tek nor I do expect to receive one.

This subject is critical and Tek is by far not doing what it could be doing. The Swedish ISPs proved it.

Demand all you want. I think you owe TSI an apology for being bombastic and ludicrous, but I'm not egomaniacal enough to "demand" one.

And how about we let TSI decide what's good for their business instead of random internet people who act like tough legal experts from behind their keyboard?

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to The Mongoose

said by The Mongoose:

Demand all you want. I think you owe TSI an apology for being bombastic and ludicrous, but I'm not egomaniacal enough to "demand" one.

Oh really? Last time I checked being bombastic and ludicrous was not a crime. Committing something illegal was. Slandering somebody by openly saying that they are committing illegal acts is... well... slandering.

Slander:
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

said by The Mongoose:

And how about we let TSI decide what's good for their business instead of random people who are tough legal experts from behind their keyboard?

Well, because I am a customer. Tek's business model is to fulfill customer's satisfaction. This means to listen to customer's needs and provide them. Actually, Tek owes me a thank you for starting this thread and saving them thousands in customer's surveys and polls.

As to random people, that also applies to you.

As to "legal experts" simple, prove me wrong instead of typing e-filler.


TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:7
reply to KPaul

We need logs for many other reasons.

Spammers, abuse, troubleshooting. Usage.

We also get court ordered abuse/hacking cases unrelated to copyright.
--
TSI Gabe - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )

Expand your moderator at work

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to globus9991

Re: Why is Tek still keeping logs???

said by globus9991:

said by bt:

said by globus9991:

Here we go again. As I explained above, there are NO *valid* business / technical or legal reasons to keep logs. Please don't repeat this without arguments to support your point of view.

Opinion

Seriously???

I'll agree that the matter of law isn't opinion, but neither of us are lawyers with full knowledge of the relevant areas of practice.

Sure, tech issues can be logged after they're noticed. But there is always a business case to be made for being proactive instead of reactive. A good enough business case to outweigh the downsides/costs/etc? That's the golden question.

It is your opinion that when it comes to logging, the risks outweigh the benefits of being proactive. A customer getting one of these emails will probably agree with you. But the customer calling in and being told that they need to suffer through some intermittent issue for a few more days so there are logs that support can go over might disagree with your opinion.

So yes - seriously.

globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to TSI Gabe

said by TSI Gabe:

We need logs for many other reasons.

Spammers, abuse, troubleshooting. Usage.

We also get court ordered abuse/hacking cases unrelated to copyright.

Spammers, abuse, troubleshooting are all tech reasons. If they happened, how exactly will this help you? What's done is done. If they are happening then you can log specifically on or about the problem. Clever ISPs use trigger software instead of logs. Logs are cumbersome and obsolete. Real-time or near-real time is the way to go. This is *exaclty* what the Swedis ISPs did and it worked OK for them. Not need to have widespread logging.

Usage? You don't need to log IPs. Just session start, end and bytes transferred (if the account is limited). Many ISPs do just that.

Court orders? Sure. But *only* when you receive one. If you don't have any logs then you simply report so. If this is not the case, please provide a reference to at least 1 Canadian Law that mandates widespread logging.

Funky_

join:2004-06-05
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to globus9991

I don't want to be an ass and tell TekSavvy how to do their jobs. But I agree with globus9991.

There are ways around the technical aspects of requiring logs. No IPs needs to be logged. They can use account IDs and such instead. If someone is having a technical issue and having the IPs logged would help with solving that issue then the logging can be enabled temporarily for that specific reason.

They can also lower the retention time and enable longer times for specific users if required by law.


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia
reply to bt

said by bt:

Sure, tech issues can be logged after they're noticed. But there is always a business case to be made for being proactive instead of reactive. A good enough business case to outweigh the downsides/costs/etc? That's the golden question.

It is your opinion that when it comes to logging, the risks outweigh the benefits of being proactive. A customer getting one of these emails will probably agree with you. But the customer calling in and being told that they need to suffer through some intermittent issue for a few more days so there are logs that support can go over might disagree with your opinion.

So yes - seriously.

No, not seriously.
Then, how did the Swedish ISPs do it?
I didn't see an uproar in swedish customers when they stopped logging. On the contrary, I saw a healthy support from them to the ISPs that had the vision to and the ba**s to stop this practice. Besides, where does it stop?
How many fishing expeditions from shark lawyers do we have to endure before a meaningful law/regulation is enacted? Why suffer through all that if ISPs can fix it overnight.
As to a customer not getting its issue fixed overnight, don't get me laughing!!! Did you actually worked for IT??? I can pretty much guarantee that NOTHING gets solved overnight. Furthermore, it is much more time efficient to turn logging on for a specific customer when a complaint is received than to spend countless hours wading through logs. Real-time or near-real-time is the way to go.


TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
kudos:7

Wow, i'll come back when things calm down.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to globus9991

said by globus9991:

Then, how did the Swedish ISPs do it?

Differently. That they have been successful with such methods just means that it's a valid method, it doesn't mean it's the only method. And if it's better or worse is a matter of opinion.

said by globus9991:

As to a customer not getting its issue fixed overnight, don't get me laughing!!!

Didn't say that.

said by globus9991:

Did you actually worked for IT???

Yes. For (gasp) an ISP! And (gasp) not as a phone drone!

said by globus9991:

I can pretty much guarantee that NOTHING gets solved overnight. Furthermore, it is much more time efficient to turn logging on for a specific customer when a complaint is received than to spend countless hours wading through logs. Real-time or near-real-time is the way to go.

Again, never said anything about an issue being solved right away, or overnight, because of the existence of logging.

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
reply to TSI Gabe

said by TSI Gabe:

Wow, i'll come back when things calm down.

Give them a hand .... and they will tell you how to run your business ... LOL

kovy

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to globus9991

Why did you sign with Teksavvy if you knew they logged things ?


globus9991

join:2004-11-14
Argelia

1 edit

said by kovy:

Why did you sign with Teksavvy if you knew they logged things ?

Because everybody else is quite worst ... given my choices.
But you are missing the point.
Tek should be jumping at this opportunity.
The basic rule of business is that you want to differentiate yourself from your competition.
Now that this is all over the news, can you imagine the sales boost that Tek would have if it would be to announce a new: "no logging" policy?
Free marketing!
Free advertisement!
This kind of "press" you can't get even paying for it.
Alas, Tek is blind by design. They can't see beyond their CYA policies.
That's the point of this post.