I'm just going to respond to a few different things.. Excuse the mess.
said by JMJimmy: said by nitzguy: said by resa1983:
They specifically asked for it to be handed over in Excel format.
What if TSI doesn't use Microsoft Excel in their business, perhaps they can hand it over in CSV format?
. Or OpenOffice.org format?....
I mean they can't force a company to hand over data in a certain way....also if I was TSI I'd make it difficult, and I feel like I could do that in an excel format even
TSI has a legal obligation to ensure that Voltage places the same safeguards on the information that TSI does. TSI can refuse to disclose the information (even under a court order) until the safeguards are in place. Once they are in place any court order must be upheld. If TSI uses a certain type of encryption, data separation, user access controls, etc then so must Voltage.
The only problem is, the last 2 copytroll cases (1 which was Voltage in Fall 2011, 1 which was NGN Fall 2012), the courts accepted the plaintiff's request as to the format of the information, and ordered it as such. So there is some history here already.
said by JMJimmy:
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.
They will be requesting remuneration for their costs. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever that amount may be.
said by funny0:
NOW TSI might collect incidental data on usage and for congestion/networking purposes BUT no where did i sign anything stating that upon request of any 3rd party for whatever reason my data can be hap hazzardly handed over. NOW of course there are exceptions to this and one is when a warrant is issued and ill add that is a police matter not a 3rd party matter and the 3rd party and voltage should then hand over data to the police and let them obtain a warrant....
This has been tested extensively, with a bunch of defamation suits.
resulted in »webcache.googleusercontent.com/s···irefox-a
Geist himself even wrote about this:
In sorting out the balance, the court relied on a legal test established in 2010 Ontario defamation case that similarly involved anonymous online postings. That case identified four factors to consider: (1) Whether there was a reasonable expectation of anonymity; (2) Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of wrongdoing by the poster; (3) Whether the plaintiff tried to identify the poster and was unable to do so; and (4) Whether the public interest favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.
In this particular instance, the court sided with the posters and refused to order the disclosure of their identities. Since the plaintiff (who has since indicated she plans to appeal) did not identify the specific defamatory words, she failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation.
So, lets go through the test with this case, shall we?
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
2. Prima facie case of wrongdoing? Yes, until the evidence is tried anyways (which isn't required for a court order)
3. Plaintiff tried to identify the poster & unable to? Yes.
4. Public Interest favouring disclosure outweighs freedom of express & privacy... Yes.
The only thing people HAVE been able to do, is argue to stay anonymous with representation, conduct a full trial, while the judge knows who you are.
I'm sorry to say that you have no right to privacy whatsoever if libeling someone, or breaking the law (ie copyright infringement).--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP