dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

The Mongoose

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

Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.

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.


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

johansmith

join:2012-12-15
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.


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

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.

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/

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
said by johansmith:

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?

I'm saying your argument is right, if they claimed originally they had no logs at all, sent out no notice then they could argue that front. But they sent out notices indicating they have identified subscribers so they couldn't claim that now to the court.