|reply to resa1983 |
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.
said by resa1983:True, but questions on a much general level need to be with respect to responsibilities ISPs have under law to protect account information. Safe harbor positions were never intended to be used to exempt from that responsibility. There is a fine line, and consumers deserve need to know where that line is.
Its very possible that Teksavvy is worried about losing their neutral status in this issue. Carriers have to walk a fine line between neutral and being complicit.
I had an excellent interview with David Ellis today, I will be posting next week, and in the interview he did state that on the user side, there is a lot of confusion on exactly what is going on. Over the course of the next several weeks I will be doing my best to try and get answers to a lot of questions people have from experts.
If anyone has questions they wish answered please e-mail the show cdntechnetwork at gmail dot com I'll do my best over the next several weeks to rally the troops of experts to appear on the podcast. No personal information will be used in the show, your questions will remain anonymous.
In any case, and after speaking with Ellis who was in the court room yesterday, it's probable with the CIPPIC intervention that no information will be submitted to Voltage (my own assumption based on what actually happened in the court and how the court responded to the CIPPIC's letter). But the CIPPIC can't and probably will not intervene in every single case surrounding subscriber information. It's important to ask questions now, and be informed so that you can better protect your rights.
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/