O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

reply to Bhruic

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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.

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??

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.

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.

reply to MaynardKrebs

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

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.

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!

reply to JonyBelGeul

reply to drjp81

reply to peterboro

reply to TSI Marc

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

reply to drjp81
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!
----------------

Hi.

I think if there was a legal responsibility to secure one's own network - backed up in law by vicarious liability - then complicating issues re: manufacturers liability to provide devices which are secure, and quite technical proofs about how that security can be circumvented may come into play. It's too complicated for this bear of little brain.

But until that happens, and it might, I'd stick to keeping it simple and saying what I said earlier. It's not secure, because it doesn't have to be.

Then we have to see how a judge interprets it. Does a nameless mass IP trawl operation implying automatic guilt on no other evidence, provide more of a sound basis for judgement than a sworn, honest statement of the facts backed up by realistic questions and concerns of a non-technical, easily explained nature.

Of course, if I did pirate things, I might not be comfortable with this defence. It would involve lying under sworn oath - and I for one wouldn't get into that territory for all the tea in China - and I like my tea!

Cheers
Dave

reply to peterboro

reply to The Mongoose

reply to TSI Marc
If only the burden of proof was that simple. Ever fought a parking ticket? The meter maid goes on the stand and says "Yes, he was parked there at that time". No evidence, just a statement.

No signature on the ticket, had a second court date. No proof that the meter maid had the right time on the ticket. Doesn't matter. The judge simply stated he's 51% sure the meter maid is telling the truth.

Now, of course, Voltage isn't a friend of the court, so they'll have to be a little bit more serious than that, but not all that much. Fortunately, the amount they'll win is miniscule.

reply to JonyBelGeul