dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8954
share rss forum feed

The Mongoose

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

Re: Why is Tek still keeping logs???

said by qewey:

said by The Mongoose:

We might get lucky and see TSI reduce the logging window, but given that they were planning to go to 180 days instead of 90 before this all started, I wouldn't count on it.

If they had any sense they would reconsider the 180 days plan in view of the new legal context and reduce it to the strict legal minimum ... It actually would be a strong selling point to make.

Well as it turns out, they reconsidered the 180 days in view of the new legal context and are staying at 90 for now. Teksavvy has lots of sense, and there's really no need for the insults that get lobbed at them.

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to globus9991
said by globus9991:

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?

For starters Tek did not cause the problem. Those persons illegally downloading/uploading caused the problem.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe:

We need logs for many other reasons.

Spammers, abuse, troubleshooting. Usage.

I don't see how logging DHCP IP addresses helps with spam or abuse, and my experiences with TSI tech support have never included any look at past history beyond a couple of days, even when further back might have helped.

I don't see any case here for keeping logs of my connection beyond a few days, or perhaps a billing period at the most, other than in exceptional circumstances. So please stop it.


UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Samgee
Lots of folks talking around the subject here.... i.e why ISP's might or might not.

When you say "They are not required to keep logs for copyright alone" - it implies you know, or think, that there ACTUALLY IS a legal requirement for ISP's to keep logs.

Am I right? If so, what is your source, and what do you believe that legal retention time to be?


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
Gang, I'll be posting a blog later today about exactly this.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

Marc, hope you're doing OK.

I for one would be really interested in the following:

1. What is the starting point for all ISP's? i.e What is the legal minimum time for which logs must be kept.

2. What is the TSI retention policy? i.e Is it at or above the legal minimum?

3. What is the reason for the discrepency between 1 and 2 (if one exists)?

Assuming there is a law for it, Question 1 is a generic answer.

Question 2 should, I believe, be an answer customers would like to know.

Question 3, is none of my business, but you might wish to explain some further info if there is indeed a discrepency between 1 and 2.

Cheers,
Dave

p.s I'm looking into answers to Q1 through a number of sources right now.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
said by UK_Dave:

Marc, hope you're doing OK.

I for one would be really interested in the following:

1. What is the starting point for all ISP's? i.e What is the legal minimum time for which logs must be kept.

2. What is the TSI retention policy? i.e Is it at or above the legal minimum?

3. What is the reason for the discrepency between 1 and 2 (if one exists)?

Assuming there is a law for it, Question 1 is a generic answer.

Question 2 should, I believe, be an answer customers would like to know.

Question 3, is none of my business, but you might wish to explain some further info if there is indeed a discrepency between 1 and 2.

Cheers,
Dave

p.s I'm looking into answers to Q1 through a number of sources right now.

Tx Dave. doing ok.

yep. I've been trying to get to the bottom of those same answers too..

2. is already answered.. we currently store logs for 90 days...
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

2 edits
Glad to hear it, Marc. This must be a stressful time, and I'm sure most of us on here appreciate having such an accessible CEO.

To let you know, and to avoid setting multiple rabbits running, I have questions lodged with:

1. The CRTC (awaiting call back with a quotable qource).

2. The CAIP (A great chat, with an opinion attached, but I'm awaiting permission to quote following further legal clarification.)

3. A friendly provincial Member of Parliament who has connections with folks at Trade and Commerce. I have also asked them to point me somewhere to answer the question of IP ADDRESS does not equal a PERSON.

4. A personal contact within a legal practice.

EDIT 5: The Candian Office of The Privacy Commisioner. (Declared that they have no legislation on the issue of Data Retention, other to offer advice and advocacy).

EDIT 6: Industry Canada. (Awaiting a call back 24-48 hours to see if they believe they have a say in the matter presently, and if so, what it is).

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Cheers
Dave


RMerlin

join:2009-10-09
Montreal, QC
reply to globus9991
Personally I'm looking at it from both sides.

If someone were to accuse me of some misdeed, I would be happy to be able to get Teksavvy to provide logs proving that I did *NOT* have the IP the accuser claims at the time of the misdeed.

The way I see it, it goes both ways.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
Thanks for the comment, but I'd rather keep this to facts, quotable sources, and legislation.

We are all going to have differing opinions on what we might like the policy to be, but I want to know what the legal situation is at the current time.

Cheers,
Dave

EDIT Sorry Merlin. I see you were not replying to my quote. My apologies.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
EDIT 6: Industry Canada. (Awaiting a call back 24-48 hours to see if they believe they have a say in the matter presently, and if so, what it is).

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
In the US, several federal judges have ruled that an IP address is not a person, and have thrown out copytroll suits.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Indeed. That hasn't happened here in Canada yet though.


Anony

@terago.net
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

In the US, several federal judges have ruled that an IP address is not a person, and have thrown out copytroll suits.

And as such we need to push this to happen in Canada.

eeeaddict

join:2010-02-14

1 recommendation

reply to RMerlin
to be fair wouldn't the burden of proof be on them to show YOU committed the deed beyond reasonable doubt? (if there are no logs then it would be EXTREMELY hard for them to prove (im not a lawyer just my 2 cents)

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
said by eeeaddict:

to be fair wouldn't the burden of proof be on them to show YOU committed the deed beyond reasonable doubt? (if there are no logs then it would be EXTREMELY hard for them to prove (im not a lawyer just my 2 cents)

Not in a lawsuit. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence in criminal trials, but in a civil suit it's simply balance of probabilities. If a judge thinks it's more likely that you committed the deed than not, you lose.

It's why OJ Simpson could be found not guilty of murder but lost the civil case where he was found responsible for the deaths of the people he killed. Same principle, a lot less dramatic.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:

Glad to hear it, Marc. This must be a stressful time, and I'm sure most of us on here appreciate having such an accessible CEO.

To let you know, and to avoid setting multiple rabbits running, I have questions lodged with:

1. The CRTC (awaiting call back with a quotable qource).

2. The CAIP (A great chat, with an opinion attached, but I'm awaiting permission to quote following further legal clarification.)

3. A friendly provincial Member of Parliament who has connections with folks at Trade and Commerce. I have also asked them to point me somewhere to answer the question of IP ADDRESS does not equal a PERSON.

4. A personal contact within a legal practice.

EDIT 5: The Candian Office of The Privacy Commisioner. (Declared that they have no legislation on the issue of Data Retention, other to offer advice and advocacy).

EDIT 6: Industry Canada. (Awaiting a call back 24-48 hours to see if they believe they have a say in the matter presently, and if so, what it is).

Illegitimi non carborundum!

Cheers
Dave

I'm on a similar quest, Dave. I think I need to read everything Michael Geist has written on the subject and then send him a couple of follow-up questions. He really is the Canadian expert on such matters.

alphaz18

join:2005-02-26
CANADA
reply to globus9991
Heres a suggestion: (may or may not be of any use)

what if you kept logs of the mac addresses and time instead of IPs..
would that not throw wrenches into the copyright trolls methods?


Anonymous225

@swissinet.com
My personal suggestion here would be to pay for the content, or do without. I remember coming here years ago and seeing someone suggest that the people who used torrents and were complaining about throttling on Bell's end were torrenting for reasons that were less than legal. It was vehemently denied. It seems that individual has been vindicated by what I see here.
Expand your moderator at work

Insilin1i

join:2010-07-15
Toronto, ON
reply to Anonymous225

Re: Why is Tek still keeping logs???

A lot of people continuously download Linux distress, daily.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 recommendation

I had a really useful chat with Tom (Copeland, the Chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers).

I asked him if I could quote him, and after further legal checks, he was happy for me to quote him confirming the following:

"I have confirmed that the recent copyright legislation
(or any other legislation/regulation) does not require ISPs to maintain logs for any specific period. It's a business decision on the part of the
provider based on their needs/abilities."

The Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissionier has also confirmed they have no legislation in that area.

No response from the CRTC yet.

No response from Trade and Industry yet.

Cheers,
Dave
Expand your moderator at work

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to UK_Dave

Re: Why is Tek still keeping logs???

In light of the recent Voltage issues, and given the clarification we now have on Legal Mandatory Minimums, or rather the lack of them, I'm wondering if ISP Log retention times might well become a point on which different ISP's might compete?

Similarly, might it become possible to send a message to these copyright speculators by reducing log retention times to such a small window that it becomes impossible for them to expect ISP's to deliver the information?

I understand that there are many other reasons why ISP's might keep longer records, one of which is mitigating charges of aiding and abetting, but right now I feel we are at a tipping point and such a change sends a strong message.

If, before the date a warrant is granted, an ISP reduced log times to 14 days, would they be found in contempt? (I'm using terms here in a loose way, I know - but you get the drift). Does the initial letter from Voltage force an ISP to cease all regular purging of the logs?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers
Dave

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
There's no way an ISP can safely "dump" relevant logs while legal proceedings are underway to acquire said logs. But all of the the non-relevant logs could be dumped.

Other than that, it appears that an ISP could make a statement up front about changes to log retention, and then gradually phase in the changes without trouble.


Need2Know

@videotron.ca
reply to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:

I had a really useful chat with Tom (Copeland, the Chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers).

I asked him if I could quote him, and after further legal checks, he was happy for me to quote him confirming the following:

"I have confirmed that the recent copyright legislation
(or any other legislation/regulation) does not require ISPs to maintain logs for any specific period. It's a business decision on the part of the
provider based on their needs/abilities."

The Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissionier has also confirmed they have no legislation in that area.

No response from the CRTC yet.

No response from Trade and Industry yet.

Cheers,
Dave


Hey Dave, I do believe the guy from CAIP is also the owner of eagle.ca (an ISP).

Maybe you can ask him this question for all of us here:

Since Eagle (as well as Teksavvy via CNOC) is part of the "secret working group" that is "Secretly Supporting Internet Surveillance Legislation, how does the "no requirement to log" fit in with this secret agenda they are part of?

If he doesn't know anything about this, just point him here which clearly shows him part of the secret group (as well as CNOC members):
How Canada's Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

What were the logging requirements stipulated in their secret meetings in support of spying on people? That is, if he can share this secret. Or maybe TSI can share it with us?

Let us know what he says, Dave.

Another question I have, but this one is for teksavvy:
Since we know CNOC & teksavvy (by association) are part of the secret group that is secretly supporting Net Spying, is this the reason why you were thinking of bumping the log retention to 6 months or longer?

TSI_Marc stated he is thinking of not doing this anymore (increasing log retention times). Will TSI (via CNOC) bring this up in other secret meetings they will have in support of Net Spying?


KPaul

join:2007-02-08
reply to mlord
Lets do this, the log thing (clap) go!

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to Need2Know
HI there Need2Know.

I know nothing of that to which you refer.

I also don't feel it is relevant to the conversation I had with Tom.

For what it's worth, Tom was extremely forthright, very approachable, and knowledgeable on the subject. The only reason for the delay in my posting his comments, was that I asked for permission to quote him directly, and he asked if I could give him just a little time to be absolutely sure that his opinion was 100% accurate.

I asked him about the legislation, as it stands now. He answered me.

What he as a business owner does/wants, and what Marc as a business owner does/wants - is a different issue.


Need2Know

@videotron.ca
Dave,

What I'm getting at is that some people are speaking from one side of their mouth yet saying something else from the other side of their mouth.

It's all gravy.

There will be no such thing as "no logging" or reduced logging. Only increased logging. Mr. Copeland is very well aware of this since he is part of the secret working group in favour of capturing what IP you have and what you say on facebook (as well as CNOC).

There is no minimum requirement, as we already know, except for revenue purposes (tax records) and these records, logs and transactions are retained already for a minimum of 7 years by law. So those ISP's who have IP info on accounting records with your name basically keep those records for a decade already. Like maybe someone paying for a static IP or VOIP, or IP with B/W usage, as an example.

The "no logging" thing is a pipe dream. A kids fantasy.

voxframe

join:2010-08-02
reply to globus9991
Here is an interesting idea...

What about the concept of logging "For internal/business use only"

Meaning an ISP can keep logs all they want to reduce problems on their network (Hackers, DDOS, assholes, etc), but essentially "screw you" to anyone external who wants them. It IS a corporate decision after all right? That means there's zero legal obligation to provide those logs to anyone outside of the company.

"Sorry we keep limited logs for internal usage and troubleshooting, but they are not available outside of the company due to privacy/security reasons"

I don't know how that flies in regards to a law enforcement request, but I DO know that if you run a NATed address and are unable to provide customer info because it's a 1 in 300 chance of who it is, there is nothing they can do and the issue is closed. So the obligation to "try" is there, but the obligation to actually "DO" is not.