|reply to TSI Marc |
Re: Discussion about log retention
Marc, first off, I don't think it can be said enough: thanks for your efforts on this and all the other matters over the past few years. I can't help but think that you could be somewhere earning a comfortable salary with a tiny fraction of the stress you were dealing with *before* the lawsuit surfaced. I can't imagine how that buried the needle. Same goes for Gabe, Martin, and everyone else whose userid starts with 'TSI' (it's impossible to put together a comprehensive list here, but you guys know who you are).
Second, before anyone jumps on me: yes, I know TSI is for-profit. But I seriously doubt Marc is getting rich over in Chatham, nor is anyone else associated with TSI. Someone please disabuse me of the notion if I'm mistaken, but I just don't see how it's possible. You know who is getting rich, though, and who you won't ever--not ever--find on a forum like this, opening up a debate about something as banal (until last week, anyway) as log retention policy? The CEOs of Rogers, BCE, Shaw, Telus.
Marc doesn't need to be anywhere near as open about this whole thing has he has been. If this were any of the ISPs mentioned above, we would almost certainly have a bland, useless statement issued by a team of lawyers and PR people. Instead, we're getting a discussion that's far more open than I would ever have expected.
Okay, on to the actual discussion: I tend to agree that a 'no-log' policy is a tough sell on the face of it. Policy can't be shaped to protect infringing users. Really, when you think about it, it's just that simple. Logs exist for all sorts of useful purposes, and without them it would make things a LOT harder for everyone who legitimately needs them. No doubt there is a principled, legitimate argument against keeping them (see below), but there are some seriously practical considerations here. The world can't always run on principles.
That being said, I'm frustrated by the notion that not wanting records of my online activities kept must automatically mean I'm up to no good; it's the first step toward Vic Toews' stupid 'with us or with the child pornographers' argument. (Marc, to be clear, I'm not saying you're making that argument; rather, I'm lamenting the perception that anyone who goes with 'the no-log ISP' can't possibly have a legitimate reason for doing so.) An encrypted /home folder is not necessarily filled to the brim with illicit material, and an ISP that takes its commitment to privacy ultra-seriously should not have to be synonymous with some sort of 'internet ghetto'.
If we're being honest here, TSI is already the ISP with the biggest data caps (or complete lack of same, depending on your plan). Nobody needs 300GB for mail, web and Linux ISOs (Angelo notwithstanding). In that sense, the company has already attracted a certain type of user. That is NOT to discount all the other solid reasons for choosing TSI (local/sane tech support, transparency, great peering/routing, support for oddball setups, political muscle to fight UBB, etc.), but doubtless it's all some users are thinking about when they subscribe. I don't think that's had a negative impact on the company's image; the name is a lot more common now than it was four years ago, it's running a better-than-decent ad campaign, and the subscriber base has grown at what could be considered a literally painful rate.
Ultimately, we shouldn't need to have this discussion at all. If a person wants to continue to engage in activities that are at odds with Canadian law, well...there are a myriad of ways to do it without risking exposure to things like the Voltage suit, and without putting TSI in this position.
There are a lot of other things that could be said on this matter that don't directly relate to logs, but I suppose there are other threads.
TL;DR: 60 days would be nice, but I think 90 days is pretty reasonable and seems to be generally acceptable.
EDITS: 1) missed an apostrophe, 2) deleted a superfluous period. Ugh.