dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54812
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Rastan

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by Rastan:

Good stuff, hm. Thanks for demonstrating how this can be done.

It isn't brainiac stuff... anyone can do this following the example above. Matter of fact people who are now scared and never heard of sox will likely follow this example and someone in the states or some other country will now get an extortion letter instead of them.

All these mass lawsuits today... when I was into it that didn't exist. And if they existed back then i'd be responsible for thousands of people getting extortion letters. And I'm just one person. Now imagine the thousands of people who are doing this.

But when you get into writing your own TCL for the bots to scan, jump ip's, jump ranges, chaining bots and IP's etc, and your own scripts, then that is when the learning really starts and where you discover everything you can do with a single command with a 10000 IP's like this.

But this is usually the stuff that gets deleted... I'm sure Marc knows all this very well, he's a smart guy... he was just egging me on to show others that their IP could indeed be used and no one is safe.

I fell for it. *shrug*

But it's a lesson people should be aware of.

What I'm wondering now is this...

Thinking back to when I used to do this I would always be behind a spoofed IP when using someone else IP for nefarious deeds (chained proxies). However I was lazy at times and I wouldn't jump IP's in the chain... So it makes me wonder what exactly his logs show on his end.

If someone did spoof TSI IP's, could they have been lazy like I was and keep the same IP while using tsi IP's? In other words, is it possible that Marc could find a common denominator IP (say from China for example) connecting to his TSI IP's around the same time stamp from CANIPRE's time stamps? If so than... wow... That would be a mind blower discovery.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Vorter
said by Vorter :

If TekSavvy will not fight this I will be terminating my service.

You cannot bill yourselves as different from your competitors by claiming they wouldn't make this information available then make no effort to fight these copyright trolls.

Do you see my point now Marc about costing this right? You gave people the gold platter and they don't grasp it. Which in turn costs you more money again, and your time isn't cheap.

I feel for you man.

Wish I couldn't invent a bot to pop out of a monitor and poke people in the eye. Not like they need their eyes, they are blind to what was given to them.

Torabo

join:2009-09-01
reply to tired
said by tired:

In the 2000 or so IP addresses that they sent for review, were there any "bad" ones that didn't match up to a person? Or is the ~900 discrepancy between IPs and persons notified due to people being caught on multiple IPs?

I think this is an important point

Mainly because some trackers (opentracker comes to mind, which is what TPB uses I believe... ah yes according to wikipedia, though dunno how true that is) insert random IPs into their peer pool for the purpose of plausible deniability... so if some of the IPs don't match up, it could be a possible indicator that the torrent they were monitoring was inserting random IPs, which would mean that canipre's claim that they managed to download packets from all the listed IPs isn't as true as they're claiming.

Heck, even if all the IPs match up, there's still a chance that this did happen. Though to know whether or not there's such a possibility, one would need to know which trackers they acquired their torrent peer data from.


Vorter

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm
Not entirely sure what you are saying. But if TekSavvy retains my information for a specific purpose; emergencies, police investigations and whatever, and they have no internal policy about how and when this information is provided to third parties, then yes this will cost them greatly. In both time and loss of customers. It's poor practice and it's a poor response on the part of TSI.


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

said by tired:

In the 2000 or so IP addresses that they sent for review, were there any "bad" ones that didn't match up to a person? Or is the ~900 discrepancy between IPs and persons notified due to people being caught on multiple IPs?

I think this is an important point

Mainly because some trackers (opentracker comes to mind, which is what TPB uses I believe... ah yes according to wikipedia, though dunno how true that is) insert random IPs into their peer pool for the purpose of plausible deniability... so if some of the IPs don't match up, it could be a possible indicator that the torrent they were monitoring was inserting random IPs, which would mean that canipre's claim that they managed to download packets from all the listed IPs isn't as true as they're claiming.

Heck, even if all the IPs match up, there's still a chance that this did happen. Though to know whether or not there's such a possibility, one would need to know which trackers they acquired their torrent peer data from.

None did not match.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


lleader

join:2011-01-01
Mississauga, ON
Go to bed Marc. You need your rest!

Torabo

join:2009-09-01
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

None did not match.

Thanks for the clarification Marc


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

Go to bed Marc. You need your rest!

I wont be able to sleep!
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to bjlockie
said by bjlockie:

The name of the person that the account is registered to is legally responsible for ALL use of that account (ie. all users).

Uh, can you back this statement up please? It is setting off my BS detector.

cowwoc

join:2007-05-19
St John'S, NL
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

Good question. I assumed that this would be a matter for small claims court based on the following:

"In Ontario, the Small Claims Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice. It deals with civil disputes of a monetary value of up to $25,000 (Canadian)."

source (pdf file) - »www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ··· t_EN.pdf

Someone in another thread said that Voltage Pictures plans to take people to federal court. I'm not sure if they will be forced to take it to small claims court since the amount will be under $25,000 or if they have the option of choosing a different court.

edit: The examples of claims that can be filed in small claims court doesn't list copyright infringement but it doesn't list every type of claim that can be filed.

If small claim's court applies, it pretty much kills their ability to prosecute. If it does not, they are limited to $5,000 per individual which brings into question whether lawyer fees are charged on top of this fee. If they are awarded $5,000 *plus* lawyer fees it makes it substantially more painful for the defendant. Still, at $5,000 a head (more likely $100 for a first time offence) they take-home amount will be extremely low. The only reason they would sue is to scare people more than anything else.

Time will tell,
Gili


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to tired
said by tired:

said by bjlockie:

The name of the person that the account is registered to is legally responsible for ALL use of that account (ie. all users).

Uh, can you back this statement up please? It is setting off my BS detector.

Like saying i lend out my car and i'm responsible if they hurt someone because i own it. How is data different? I'm not responsible for the actions of those using it.

Just an example. I have to stress though i was not and will never be one of those accused... my kids keep me busy enough

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to activoice
said by activoice:

Although TSI is not arguing against the case on the merits.

Couldn't TSI inform the court that an IP address only identifies the residence that the internet connection terminates at, but that it in no way identifies the individual using the internet at the time the alleged infringement took place?

So basically go on record that you will provide the customer information if ordered by the court, but that this customer information does not necessarily indicate the name of the individual who may have infringed copyright?

This is an excellent idea.

It gets the concept into the record of the case on day 1.
It also sets Voltage up for damage claims against it later ...... after all who knows better about this than - an ISP or a bunch of movie makers?

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to UK_Dave
said by UK_Dave:

I'm not named in this, and I never will be unless by error.

But *when* you are named in error someday, how are you going to *prove* it wasn't you?

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

said by hm :

ok then, I'll give it a go later this evening. Just a matter of finding an IP/sucker to use and i'll try it on a small "legal" torrent in case someone gets pissed off and causes crap.

That is, if the mod's allow this little educational experience to show. I'll let you talk to them about that.

haha. sure.. the obvious question then though will be... so, did that occur in any of the cases listed by Voltage?

Who's to say, with 100% certainty, that it didn't 100% of the time?

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc
This is a Motion for release of personal Information, Not a Copyright Trial, I don;t see why Privacy cannot be a point to bring up to the court, I agree its not teks place to say these 2300 ips are Innocent thats fine, But as an ISp handling Customers private information, Would not it make sense to Oppose the motion based on Privacy Concerns? I am not named but this Does make me as a customer wonder When and if marcs Going to be the Isp to stay with I like teksavvys services but an isp who Rolls on its users without even a Statement Sure Don't oppose it But MAKE A FRIGGIN statement! or something. I hope tek does more than Nod and say sure np. here you go.
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.

Bhruic

join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
said by morisato:

Would not it make sense to Oppose the motion based on Privacy Concerns?

I know it's a long thread, but he's already addressed that multiple times. This is not a test case. They've already had that. Other ISPs already went to court and made the privacy argument, and the court didn't accept it and ordered them to turn over the records. The precedent has already been set. Other than making people here "feel good", what would the point be of them going in and making an argument that's already been rejected?


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to TSI Marc
Does anyone have any references to this first Canadian case that has set precendent?

Bhruic

join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
It's being discussed in this thread: »Lawsuit is bigger than you think IMO

Nemo888

join:2005-12-25
Canada
reply to TSI Marc
I wonder how this will work. I was not given a notice. But I do have an unsecured wireless network. There are currently 24 clients on the network, 19 are not my devices. Since they did not ask permission and are technically stealing my internet am I liable for their actions? Am I not technically just another internet service provider.

And if someone downloaded one of Voltage's shitty movies wouldn't the damages by the 12$ a movie ticket cost. So the 100$ minimum seems assured. Not 5000$ dollars.

Let Voltage spend thousands to get hundreds.

Bhruic

join:2002-11-27
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
said by Nemo888:

And if someone downloaded one of Voltage's shitty movies wouldn't the damages by the 12$ a movie ticket cost. So the 100$ minimum seems assured. Not 5000$ dollars.

It's not about downloading, it's about uploading. With peer-to-peer file sharing networks, you are (usually) doing both simultaneously. Since you are effectively sharing the file with others, that takes it out of the realm of a movie ticket cost.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Bhruic
said by Bhruic:

It's being discussed in this thread: »Lawsuit is bigger than you think IMO

Thanks
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc
So it appears that the judge may indeed grant disclosure based on the previous "Recoil" movie case. However since that was a first (breaking new ground for us in Canada) perhaps not all arguments for privacy may have been made to the court before the decision. We are on familiar ground this time around. CIPPIC is trying to intervene and some of the informed IP owners may also decide to challenge disclosure. It will be interesting to see what transpires on Monday. It only take one objector with a valid point to kill disclosure but it has to be good as the judge will probably side with copyright infringement over privacy concerns. I would not say that it is a done deal yet tho.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.

activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to TSI Marc
Something I was wondering about... I am wondering if one of the customers who was identified runs something like a coffee shop. If a coffee shop is offering open WIFI and someone in the coffee shop was connected to the tracker at some point doesn't that mean the coffee shop owner is on the hook for this??

In the case of something like a coffee shop,or public spaces like malls and airports would they be deemed not liable, similar to how an ISP is not liable??


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Marc
That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer but I can't see how an open wifi network can hold the owner responsible. There is just no fair or reasonable way to police it.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? BHell... A Public Futility.

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
reply to Rastan
This is a matter for the Federal Courts, at this time. I believe that the Plaintiff can chose to proceed via Small Claims but they will then be restricting themselves to that court, reduced fees, etc. and there is no guarantee that they can do the same across Canada.

The Defendant cannot chose to have the matter heard in Small Claims.

Now to add to "Marc's Defence": it was stated that Marc made an "agreement" to allow TSI to notify their clients first. As has been stated this procedure will hopefully be enacted in the new year. It is very likely that the Plaintiff chose to proceed NOW in order to not have to follow the new upcoming procedure, Marc and TSI did the right thing, knowing that present case law was in favour of the plaintiff.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by UK_Dave:

I'm not named in this, and I never will be unless by error.

But *when* you are named in error someday, how are you going to *prove* it wasn't you?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

UK_Dave

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

4 edits
reply to MaynardKrebs
But *when* you are named in error someday, how are you going to *prove* it wasn't you?
-----------------------------

Hi MK.

Just to clarify, I'm not in the "tough, suck it up, it won't happen to me camp". That quote suggests otherwise, and I'm hoping the effort I've put into this issue over the last few days speaks otherwise....

But to answer your question:

1. I would say I operate an open WIFI. Despite what a few have claimed, I can confirm there is no automatic vicarious liability in that case. It is legal to do so, and just like an ISP with no logs, there are no charges of "aiding and abetting".

2. I would also gather sworn statements from all the various people who come here and use my WIFI. Friends of the kids, business associates who have used my WIFI without supervision.

3. I would offer to the court a sworn, signed statement that I have never knowingly installed any P2P software on any device owned by me. I would offer the fact that I can not say the same for any other person using my WIFI, but neither am I required to know.

4. I would remind the court that it is not required of ME to keep logs to identify users of my network.

5. I would remind the court that the prosecution cannot identify ME from those IP records - and ask in open court for clarification from the prosecution as to what the computer name, or MAC address, of the offending device was to allow me to further investigate which of the 30+ devices it may have been.

Of course, it may still go against me - in a civil case we have accept it is about a judge making a call - but it would be a test case on vicarious liability in Canada. It would take a long time. It would involve huge referals and postponements. Others with more clout than me would then be fighting this case.

Just like fitting a car alarm doesnt make your car un-stealable, it just makes the next guys car more attractive.

That's how I would do it if I were wrongly accused, personally.

Cheers
Dave

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to AkFubar
That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer but I can't see how an open wifi network can hold the owner responsible. There is just no fair or reasonable way to police it.
---------------------

I can confirm that no law exists currently on the subject.

There is no general vicarious liability other than in the terms of conditions with your ISP regarding financial liability for overages.

It is ripe for a test case I believe.


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
UK_DAVE is on fire!

Awesome job man. With all the routers out there with the WPS flaw, I'd simply point out to the fact that even if I reasonably try to secure my router, this flaw in the construction basically allows anyone with a PC to gain access to my wireless network. For many routers, in minutes!

»www.neowin.net/news/the-wps-wifi ··· xplained
--
Cheers!

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by UK_Dave:

I'm not named in this, and I never will be unless by error.

But *when* you are named in error someday, how are you going to *prove* it wasn't you?

Burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.

No, it doesn't. This is not a criminal matter. If a judge thinks it's 51% likely that the defendant committed the act alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff wins. Civil litigation is not "Law And Order SVU".