dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to jkoblovsky

Re: Massive Stakes for Online Privacy in Teksavvy Vs Voltage

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

Well, I think you mean well.

so for example:

"Judge’s very rarely look at the merits of the request unless the businesses oppose that requests"

In the last Voltage case, without any opposition from the ISP, the judge wrote a 6 page decision analyzing and setting out why the test was met.

...

"businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date"

That's just not true at all.

...

"In fact nowhere in the new copyright legislation does it mention ISPs, service providers, neutral or safe harbor"

31.1(1) - “A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter.”
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Rastan

join:2007-04-25
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms

31.1(1) - “A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter.”

Marc, why are you once again citing this section of the copyright law to argue that an ISP can't oppose requests to divulge personal information? This is clearly not what it says.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

said by jkoblovsky:

said by TSI Marc See Profile
I would not recomend that at all.

Of course you wouldn't.

"businesses assume the legal risk if that request is found to be without merit at a later date"

That's just not true at all.

Allow me to correct you on that:

From »teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy/pol···y-policy

quote:
Principle 1 - Accountability
The TekSavvy Companies are responsible for personal information under their control and shall designate one or more persons who are accountable for compliance with the following principles.

Principle 2 - Identifying Purposes for Collection of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall identify the purposes for which personal information is collected at or before the time the information is collected.

Principle 3 - Obtaining Consent for Collection, Use or Disclosure of Personal Information
The knowledge and consent of a customer or employee is required for the collection, use or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

Principle 4 - Limiting Collection of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall limit the collection of personal information to that which is necessary for the purposes identified. The TekSavvy Companies shall collect personal information by fair and lawful means.

Principle 5 - Limiting Use, Disclosure and Retention of Personal Information
The TekSavvy Companies shall not use or disclose personal information for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. The TekSavvy Companies shall retain personal information only as long as necessary for the fulfillment of those purposes.
As I understand it, one of the purposes for collecting personal information is to abide the Laws as required. However, in this case, TSI is not abiding the Laws, but trading their responsibility to protect the personal information in exchange for the opportunity to notify their customers that their personal information was requested by a third party that was not the court.

I understand TSI's argument, "...otherwise, we'd wonder what hit us!".

That argument is weak in my opinion. That's because the true argument is, "...otherwise, our customers would have wondered what hit them!"

Wasn't that the intent of obtaining notice-and-notice, to make sure TSI customers were aware of what's about to happen? Yet further arguments point to TSI trying to protect themselves instead, "...we refused to argue the merits of the claims." Claim is accepted by the court, order to disclose is given, TSI customers now face the totality of legal costs. Nice way to get out of a jam. However, in doing so, TSI now faces lawsuits by their own customers, as TSI had to breach the privacy agreement, by refusing to uphold their responsibility to protect the personal information that is now made freely available to the claimant.

IANAL, but look, if some chump like me can think of the above, what do you think an actual lawyer will come up with? I got no money for court stuff. But come to think of it, if it ever comes to that, none of TSI's customers will need any. It will become a class action suit, since it's one action from TSI against 2,300 of its customers. Ask your own lawyers how that's gonna play out.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
In fact, TSI's privacy policy should now include a caveat describing exactly the actions that TSI took in this matter.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18
North York, ON
reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

. It will become a class action suit, since it's one action from TSI against 2,300 of its customers. Ask your own lawyers how that's gonna play out.

very bad PR. hopefully it'll never get to that.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to JonyBelGeul
Jony, this has been gone over in several different threads and I keep bringing up this fine caveat that's in the privacy policy:

The Privacy Policy does not impose any limits on the collection, use or disclosure of the following information by the TekSavvy Companies:

(i) information that is publicly available, such as a customer's name, address, telephone number and electronic address, when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance; or

(ii) the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

Voltage is not asking for the logs themselves, just the names/addresses/etc which can be disclosed based on the above.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
said by JMJimmy:

Jony, this has been gone over in several different threads and I keep bringing up this fine caveat that's in the privacy policy:

The Privacy Policy does not impose any limits on the collection, use or disclosure of the following information by the TekSavvy Companies:

(i) information that is publicly available, such as a customer's name, address, telephone number and electronic address, when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance; or

(ii) the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization.

Voltage is not asking for the logs themselves, just the names/addresses/etc which can be disclosed based on the above.

If the information Voltage requested was publicly available, they wouldn't have gone to court with motion to disclose. Note item (i), it says "when listed in a directory or made available through directory assistance". Voltage didn't ask for a second piece of information based on a first piece of information found in such a directory as described above. Voltage asked for information not found in such a directory, but instead found in logs TSI keeps for internal purposes. Whether they asked for the logs themselves is irrelevant. What matters is that the information requested requires TSI divulge internal logs not publicly available, if only to prove that the information is valid in case a defendant cross-examines this evidence presented by TSI.

This brings up an interesting possibility. Is IP ever going to become like phone and address, and be imposed the same privacy practices? Take a private phone number for example. For a nominal fee, a person can request that his number not be publicly available, i.e., in a public directory and/or through directory assistance. It's customary that private persons don't usually allow others to disclose these information (even when it's publicly available already) unless they want to, like when they're looking for a job and asking others if they have any leads, and yes give them my number for that purpose. So an IP could very well fall into that category, where a TSI customer expressly forbids TSI from divulging it (therefore the association between this IP and the person) to anybody for any reason whatsoever, for a nominal fee of course, unless a court orders so of course, after TSI made reasonable efforts to abide by this privacy agreement of course.

The alternative is that even though the information requested relies on internal logs not publicly available, any and all of it can be disclosed to anybody for any reason. That's one big giant caveat that effectively renders the entire privacy agreement nul and void.

IANAL, but come to think of it, if a TSI customer needs a lawyer or a court to interpret the privacy agreement, it makes this same privacy agreement nul and void by virtue of being incomprehensible to the customer a priori, i.e., I agreed to something I didn't or couldn't understand.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
said by JonyBelGeul:

Is IP ever going to become like phone and address, and be imposed the same privacy practices? Take a private phone number for example. For a nominal fee, a person can request that his number not be publicly available, i.e., in a public directory and/or through directory assistance. It's customary that private persons don't usually allow others to disclose these information (even when it's publicly available already) unless they want to, like when they're looking for a job and asking others if they have any leads, and yes give them my number for that purpose. So an IP could very well fall into that category, where a TSI customer expressly forbids TSI from divulging it (therefore the association between this IP and the person) to anybody for any reason whatsoever, for a nominal fee of course, unless a court orders so of course, after TSI made reasonable efforts to abide by this privacy agreement of course.

Oh boy, that'd be great huh? Put me right on Canada's DNTL (Do Not Troll List) and problem solved!
If only it were that easy.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca