TekSavvy → Re: Teksavvy and PIPEDA

Again, you're ignoring the R v Ward precedent. The major difference between R v Ward and previous rulings was that the judge took into account contract law. The justice determined that because of Bhell's ToS their customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy from law enforcement or otherwise. Read Teksavvy's ToS and privacy policy. They've got the right to disclose the information (name, address, phone number, and possibly email address) without needing a court order or consent. The fact that they are insisting on a court order is admirable.

Re: filing a complaint over no response... I'll let it slide seeing as Marc has personally addressed my concerns about the lack of response and I expect a call shortly to get the issue sorted. Way way above and beyond. I could not be more impressed with Teksavvy and how they've handled the issue. I'd hate to be a Bhell/Robbers/Cogeco customer right now (or ever).

Actually, the privacy policy is clear. No, TSI does not have the right to disclose information which is not available through directories. IP is not available through directory, nor is the name/IP information available through directory.

A directory is essentially a list of association between at least two data.

Name - address
Name - phone #
Name - postal code
Name - email
Name - IP

There is no directory for name/IP nor for name/email.

There doesn't need to be a "Name - IP" directory. The directory exception in PIPEDA is saying "you can't reasonably expect your name, phone number, and address to be private when it's listed right here in this public phone book"

If you requested your info be removed from the phone book or don't have a land line then that's a different story. Facebook can also be considered a "public directory"... perhaps even Google.

So if name/phone/address are public in a given case, Voltage can request the association be made between the IP they have and said public information. It sucks but it's legal.

The question is whether their information is solid enough to warrant a court ordering TSI to make the association.

One thing I do know: If the motion for disclosure is denied, TSI damn well better request some serious costs for notifying it's customers and all the other costs they had to endure.

If the information is public, then motion to disclose is unwarranted. If there is motion to disclose, then it is warranted, then the information is not public.

The real information is not name/IP, it's name/TSI customer at the time of the allegations whereby IP is merely one aspect of this information. In fact, the verification by TSI proved this to be the case. Some names were not customers of TSI at the time of the allegations. Neither information are public. Motion to disclose is in fact asking TSI to disclose its customers' names.

The question asked by motion to disclose is: Who's your customer?

The default answer of course is: It's none of your business.

And this is why it's critically important that you do not reveal your real name on this forum. And even if you did, the information retained by this forum (IP logs/username/pwd for example) is still not public, since it's part of DSLreports own privacy agreement.

Let's put it another way. Give us one situation where the information requested by motion to disclose is public, therefore can be obtained without motion to disclose, therefore renders motion to disclose nul and void by virtue of imposing superfluous responsibilities/costs to a third party (TSI) to collect/verify/disclose the information, therefore gives TSI reason to oppose motion and then sue Voltage for superfluous costs incurred by the very motion and subsequent opposition?

Better yet, give us one situation where TSI can prove that the information can be obtained elsewhere, therefore can disclose it without much fuss?

We can argue all we want, but these are the real tests of the privacy agreement.