dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54769
share rss forum feed


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to sanc5

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by sanc5:

Well you watch what Bell, Rogers and the other indies do. I can almost guarantee if they are targeted they will not inform their customers and simply pass on their records.
==============================================
... on the other hand they could be watching what's going in here and decide to oppose any motion to disclose when they get targeted. And if they win? More customers to them? No?

Of course, you could be right, they may just cave in right away! Oh well..

No one wins.. the ISP would have to take on the enormous legal fees for their own motives which these days would only result in short term gain and even if they end up winning the case, there goes an increase on your bill so in the end you still pay.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to The Mongoose
said by The Mongoose:

said by mlerner:

said by neuromancer1:

It's privacy issue as I said I'm not named in the lawsuit but I gave TSI person information and some slime ball from Canpire can get it handed to him on silver platter with a few illegal scare tactics. Stop with the fanboy BS, really.

Then what is your problem? You are not named in the lawsuit so your information is not affected and either way, ISPs are LEGALLY required to keep logs for cases like this. They will not hand over information to just anyone without a lawful request but if it comes to it, they CANNOT evade a court order.

I thought we'd established that there isn't a legal requirement to keep the logs, but that an ISP basically can't function without them. I may have missed something.

I'm trying to dig up some info as I thought there was something in the privacy laws about it.

But also even if it's not in the law, you could make the argument, that if TSI didn't keep logs which then they would have to come back with "sorry, we don't have IP subscriber data" the court could view it as trying to evade the court order.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
reply to mlerner
So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

said by sanc5:

Well you watch what Bell, Rogers and the other indies do. I can almost guarantee if they are targeted they will not inform their customers and simply pass on their records.
==============================================
... on the other hand they could be watching what's going in here and decide to oppose any motion to disclose when they get targeted. And if they win? More customers to them? No?

Of course, you could be right, they may just cave in right away! Oh well..

No one wins.. the ISP would have to take on the enormous legal fees for their own motives which these days would only result in short term gain and even if they end up winning the case, there goes an increase on your bill so in the end you still pay.

Confused. What "enormous legal fees"??? We are talking about opposing a motion. This is not a trial. Nobody is asking Tek to defend its customers in a trial. This is one heck of a cheaper deal than a trial. Beside, there is a huge upside to the ISPs. If this kind of bull is nipped at the bud, others won't even try it and then the ISP's won't have to spend time ratting on their customers and getting bad press. Instead, they could spend their time and energy in their business.


drjp81

join:2006-01-09
canada
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

said by drjp81:

***if I was a defendant, I would have to subpoena them as an expert witness for my defence, because after all, they are the only party with *any* knowledge of what I do online and how any of my data is handled passed my modem.

Again, we have *no* knowledge of what you do or any of our customers do online.

Hi Marc. First, please don't take this as criticism. There will be plenty of that to go around. I'm just throwing things out there hoping it will help anyone, including you guys. I've not been mailed about this case so I really don't have any vested interest in this debate. I try to put myself in your shoes, what would worry me. So look at it as brain storming.

I honestly find the request for 2000 IPs in the given period of time on the said media titles, fishy. Don't you?

That being said allow me to retort: who else knows what IP I obtained during any time but you and MAYBE I? How my packets are handled when they negotiate with canpire's infrastructure? What my data should look like if it is unmolested, versus if it was manipulated.

The MAC address info in the headers of packets of a wireshark log are deceptively easy to change, but since a good number of these are yours, who else can authenticate them and how they should have been handled?

I agree that you may not have records of this, but you *are* an expert on how these things work, and the only ones with knowledge of how it's all fed/sent throughout the internet.

As I said, I would have made this a point in front of a judge before handing out the data. It will come back to haunt you, I am almost certain. But I may be accused of being paranoid.

Some guys on here understand these things a lot better than I can fathom, and one of them is bound to figure out how you are implicated (technically as a transport as it may be) in explaining how, likely or not, things happened as Voltage is alleging.
--
Cheers!

buttaknife

join:2007-06-01
reply to TSI Marc
I've had my TekSavvy goggles on for too long. Even though I am not affected by this... shame, TekSavvy. No one is asking you to fight everybody's individual case but if you can't even go on the record for your customers at the hearing about the relevant details.

Looks like I will be looking for a new ISP soon. I don't recognize this TekSavvy anymore.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to buttaknife
said by buttaknife:

I've had my TekSavvy goggles on for too long. Even though I am not affected by this... shame, TekSavvy. No one is asking you to fight everybody's individual case but if you can't even go on the record for your customers at the hearing about the relevant details.

Looks like I will be looking for a new ISP soon. I don't recognize this TekSavvy anymore.

They don't have *details*. All they have is IP records with a date and time. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here but what exactly would they be able to say?

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

I'm trying to dig up some info as I thought there was something in the privacy laws about it.

But also even if it's not in the law, you could make the argument, that if TSI didn't keep logs which then they would have to come back with "sorry, we don't have IP subscriber data" the court could view it as trying to evade the court order.

Not in a million years. Nobody can be compelled to do something that a law does not compel you to do. If a judge would tried it, the order would be appealed and striken so fast your head would spin and the judge would be admonished.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to mlerner
Voltage and all of the other copyright trolls are not the law. If Bell, Rogers & Shaw can stand up for their customers then so can Teksavvy.

If you aren't familiar with how copyright trolls operate then you should look into it. Then you'll realize how bad those comparisons you made are.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to johansmith
said by johansmith:

said by mlerner:

I'm trying to dig up some info as I thought there was something in the privacy laws about it.

But also even if it's not in the law, you could make the argument, that if TSI didn't keep logs which then they would have to come back with "sorry, we don't have IP subscriber data" the court could view it as trying to evade the court order.

Not in a million years. Nobody can be compelled to do something that a law does not compel you to do. If a judge would tried it, the order would be appealed and striken so fast your head would spin and the judge would be admonished.

Point taken so presumably they could do that.. but they've already identified subscribers by sending out notices so can't go back now or questions would be raised.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to mlerner
They can make similar arguments that CIPPIC has made - »www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270

Also, it's been established that an ISP can oppose these requests and there are several reasons why they should be opposed. In this case, Teksavvy made the decision not to oppose but if the court sides with Voltage, ISP's who are interested in protecting their customer's privacy will have to oppose these copyright trolls.

dad_of_3

join:2004-05-31
SE Ontario
reply to TSI Marc
CIPPIC is getting involved.

»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270

As much as TSI is known to "fight the good fight", I would rather have CIPPIC at court on Monday to stand up for the John/Jane Does. (no offense TSI

Hmmmm, maybe this was part of the plan from the beginning

My biggest fear was that this was going to go through with no one speaking up for the "Does". Although CIPPIC's letter to the court basically asks for a postponement to the new year, they also make all the points as to why this request for information should be denied.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
said by dad_of_3:

CIPPIC is getting involved.

»www.cippic.ca/en/node/129270

As much as TSI is known to "fight the good fight", I would rather have CIPPIC at court on Monday to stand up for the John/Jane Does. (no offense TSI

Hmmmm, maybe this was part of the plan from the beginning

My biggest fear was that this was going to go through with no one speaking up for the "Does". Although CIPPIC's letter to the court basically asks for a postponement to the new year, they also make all the points as to why this request for information should be denied.

I agree. I was/am on the fence about Tek's decision here, but so long as someone credible is making the arguments for privacy, I don't really care who it is. Also, as you said, CIPPIC is probably a better advocate than TSI would be.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

If Bell, Rogers & Shaw can stand up for their customers then so can Teksavvy.

Well I'd certainly like to see the last case where Bell and Rogers represented their customers.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to The Mongoose
Since this is a civil case right now, absolutely CIPPIC is the right party for this.

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to mlerner
I'm trying to dig up some info as I thought there was something in the privacy laws about it. But also even if it's not in the law you could make the argument, that if TSI didn't keep logs which then they would have to come back with "sorry, we don't have IP subscriber data" the court could view it as trying to evade the court order.
-----------------

Already researched with multiple legal, regulatory, and Governmental parties:

There is no law saying you need them. There is no legal comeback from not having them. There is no "evasion" if they don't exist.

But if you have them, and you delete them, you're up the creek without bug spray. You'll be eaten alive.

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

Again, nobody is asking Tek to protect anybody against the law. All we are saying is that Tek will take NO action and will hand Tek's logs, that were collected by Tek's systems, containing Tek's customers' names (and probably addresses) to a third party. Technically speaking, we are talking about Tek handing over IT'S OWN property (i.e. the documentation) to a third party. This documentation was instigated and collected by Tek, for Tek usage WITHOUT the customer having ANY other option.

Geee.... don't you think that customers have the right to expect at least SOME opposition? Even a token effort? Even something that may be used at a latter time by an affected customer's legal counsel?

No. Marc decided to CYA.

Fine. There you have it.

The Mongoose

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

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

The laws just changed. This is a test case by the trolls. Rogers and Bell are the big fish...they'll get hit, and hit hard, in 2013 if this shakedown pays off.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Rastan
said by Rastan:

It happened in 2005 and they haven't tried to target their customers ever since.

Technically they did with the Hurt Locker case last year with Bell being the ISP but then they dropped it.

buttaknife

join:2007-06-01
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

said by buttaknife:

I've had my TekSavvy goggles on for too long. Even though I am not affected by this... shame, TekSavvy. No one is asking you to fight everybody's individual case but if you can't even go on the record for your customers at the hearing about the relevant details.

Looks like I will be looking for a new ISP soon. I don't recognize this TekSavvy anymore.

They don't have *details*. All they have is IP records with a date and time. I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here but what exactly would they be able to say?

Details =! downloaded/uploaded data

Where the hell did I say that in my post? Bottom line is they can say quite a few things as as SEASONED ISP from the technical perspective to help the courts understand simple things. IP does not equate to a person, etc. These would be statements and not a "fight for every individual".

Right now, it's basically "sure, send us more, we don't care". I mean, with all the money and energy that Marc claims they've had to put into this... right?

With as good as you are with analogies, I think you should lay off assumptions, too.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

I'm trying to dig up some info as I thought there was something in the privacy laws about it.

But also even if it's not in the law, you could make the argument, that if TSI didn't keep logs which then they would have to come back with "sorry, we don't have IP subscriber data" the court could view it as trying to evade the court order.

I'm studying case law on three other fronts and my brain will explode if I check these. Someone else can look. »www.canlii.org/en/ca/pcc/

UK_Dave

join:2011-01-27
Powassan, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to The Mongoose
I was/am on the fence about Tek's decision here, but so long as someone credible is making the arguments for privacy, I don't really care who it is
----------------------

+1

Precisely. I'm not named in this, and I never will be unless by error. But this is bigger than piracy vs anti-piracy.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
reply to The Mongoose
In terms of ISP's opposing these types of requests, the law hasn't changed. I'm not so sure they'll go after the big ISP's unless they are sure they won't encounter opposition.

If Voltage pulls the same stunt against Rogers and Bell customers and they meet opposition, they will incur significant legal fees if they are tied up in court for an extended period of time. These are copyright trolls we are talking about. Linking a name to an IP so that they can extort money is their business model.

They won't be able to maximize their profits if ISP's do not give them a clear path.

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

Point taken so presumably they could do that.. but they've already identified subscribers by sending out notices so can't go back now or questions would be raised.

Huh? How would they ID any customer if there are no logs?


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to johansmith
said by johansmith:

said by mlerner:

said by Rastan:

So we should all be happy Teksavvy isn't opposing Voltage because they will save money and that means our monthly bill won't go up? Come on.

No, it's just not realistically the ISPs job to protect you from the law. If you crossed the street at a red light, bit of an odd example but would you expect the traffic light manufacturer to bail you out of jail?

Again, nobody is asking Tek to protect anybody against the law. All we are saying is that Tek will take NO action and will hand Tek's logs

Well no, they won't release the logs with a court order in any case and TekSavvy will there on Monday. They just won't be "making a case against the merit of what they are alleging" which is a seperate thing. In other words, they won't release logs unless legally compelled in terms of privacy but if the case goes through subscribers will be proceeding on their own.

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
reply to mlerner
You're right - »www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201 ··· 024.html

Did the ISP's oppose this?


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to drjp81
said by drjp81:

said by TSI Marc:

said by drjp81:

***if I was a defendant, I would have to subpoena them as an expert witness for my defence, because after all, they are the only party with *any* knowledge of what I do online and how any of my data is handled passed my modem.

Again, we have *no* knowledge of what you do or any of our customers do online.

Hi Marc. First, please don't take this as criticism. There will be plenty of that to go around. I'm just throwing things out there hoping it will help anyone, including you guys. I've not been mailed about this case so I really don't have any vested interest in this debate. I try to put myself in your shoes, what would worry me. So look at it as brain storming.

I honestly find the request for 2000 IPs in the given period of time on the said media titles, fishy. Don't you?

That being said allow me to retort: who else knows what IP I obtained during any time but you and MAYBE I? How my packets are handled when they negotiate with canpire's infrastructure? What my data should look like if it is unmolested, versus if it was manipulated.

The MAC address info in the headers of packets of a wireshark log are deceptively easy to change, but since a good number of these are yours, who else can authenticate them and how they should have been handled?

I agree that you may not have records of this, but you *are* an expert on how these things work, and the only ones with knowledge of how it's all fed/sent throughout the internet.

As I said, I would have made this a point in front of a judge before handing out the data. It will come back to haunt you, I am almost certain. But I may be accused of being paranoid.

Some guys on here understand these things a lot better than I can fathom, and one of them is bound to figure out how you are implicated (technically as a transport as it may be) in explaining how, likely or not, things happened as Voltage is alleging.

All good. No offence taken. I think this is all important dialogue.

"I honestly find the request for 2000 IPs in the given period of time on the said media titles, fishy. Don't you?"

If I get into that, I'm wading into the merits of their case. Certainly, nothing I would say, couldn't be said by anybody else on Monday. That's the point about the notice period. It's why I'm here now *ahead* of Monday. Anybody can read anything here and if they don't like it, show up on Monday and make your case. Are you going to be there on Monday? Why not?

For the logs.. I agree that this plays a role but I'm not certain exactly what role it plays yet. It's why I started that other thread.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Marc
I think Marc's position on this makes sense.

At THIS stage in the process, it's about protecting the "common carrier" status that is finally recognized at least in copyright law.

Given the timeframe available (just 6 days) the opportunity to mount any kind of valid case against the release of this information is costly in the extreme and fraught with questions, especially considering that there is no "case law" yet developed under the Copyright Modernization Act without any kind of predictable outcome. (Prior to the recent Act, the judgement of von Finkenstein on the matter of Music Copyright made it likely that pursuing such cases was likely to not succeed.) Clearly, the legal beagles have decided that they believe the new act has a chance of raking in some cash for them.

For TSI to get involved at this stage in the proceedings could put the nature of common carrier in jeopardy, and defocus on the actual items of importance ...

a) an IP address may be associated with an account and hence a person and address, this can be demonstrated to be as unreliable as Caller ID on the telephone. "I can call myself anything".

b) the company is using the court as an tool of a legalized extortion racket.

and other matters referenced in teh CIPPIC letter.

And these are not things that fall under the purview of TSI.

If people want their info protected then they can present to the court that this falls under the purview of Canada's privacy laws and seek stay of proceedings or an injunction to stop TSI from releasing the data to the company and instead release it to the court until decision has been made. Again, this is not a TSI thing. TSI can only protect your data from unlawful access. When a court says hand it over, that becomes lawful access. Yes they could resist, but what would that cost them ... and us. One of the reasons we pay companies like Bell and Roges SO much is so that they can have massive legal departments.