dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
41
share rss forum feed


neuromancer1

join:2007-01-22
York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to Optional

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

said by Optional:

Seriously considering taking my business elsewhere. I want to know that my privacy is just that, PRIVATE.

I'm considering this as well. The lack of privacy is huge issue for me even though I'm not accused. Well that and TSI will be nothing but a huge target for copyright lawsuits after this.

ultramancool

join:2004-12-22
Schenectady, NY
Indeed, if TekSavvy isn't going all out now when the laws are being brought into question, what can we really expect from them in the future, especially if the lawsuits ramp up?


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by ultramancool:

Indeed, if TekSavvy isn't going all out now when the laws are being brought into question, what can we really expect from them in the future, especially if the lawsuits ramp up?

Took the words right out of my mouth.. The wrongfully accused and the genuinely wrongfully accused will always be at risk since there is no "firewall" to protect them even the slightest.

said by neuromancer1:

said by Optional:

Seriously considering taking my business elsewhere. I want to know that my privacy is just that, PRIVATE.

I'm considering this as well. The lack of privacy is huge issue for me even though I'm not accused. Well that and TSI will be nothing but a huge target for copyright lawsuits after this.

Absolutely. I believe I'll be doing the same and i'll be moving my father and grandmother off of it as well. Though i'm the one who setup their routers it still worries me.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
Recall the days of istop. They had a proxy you had to go through to connect to the internet. So if Teksavvy had something similar what would voltage do? Either they would charge everyone with an internet connection or charge no one.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to neuromancer1
said by neuromancer1:

said by Optional:

Seriously considering taking my business elsewhere. I want to know that my privacy is just that, PRIVATE.

I'm considering this as well. The lack of privacy is huge issue for me even though I'm not accused. Well that and TSI will be nothing but a huge target for copyright lawsuits after this.

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.

Good luck to both of you.


neuromancer1

join:2007-01-22
York, ON
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by mlerner:

said by neuromancer1:

said by Optional:

Seriously considering taking my business elsewhere. I want to know that my privacy is just that, PRIVATE.

I'm considering this as well. The lack of privacy is huge issue for me even though I'm not accused. Well that and TSI will be nothing but a huge target for copyright lawsuits after this.

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.

Good luck to both of you.

It's privacy issue as I said I'm not named in the lawsuit but I gave TSI personal 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.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
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.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to neuromancer1
said by neuromancer1:

It's privacy issue as I said I'm not named in the lawsuit but I gave TSI personal 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.

Has Teksavvy actually released any information? My understanding is this motion is to get the court order that would force them to turn it over.

The Mongoose

join:2010-01-05
Toronto, ON
reply to mlerner
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.

sanc5

join:2012-12-13
Mississauga, ON
reply to mlerner
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..

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
said by sanc5:

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

You mean like Tek?......


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


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?

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.


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.

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.

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/

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?