dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1807
share rss forum feed

Who7

join:2012-12-18

1 edit

BAD NEWS? Not clear about data retention times.

Here is the bad news. ISP's are going to throw us under the bus as far as protecting our privacy.

Read and cry.....or maybe not?

**A notable exclusion from the Order is the “Notice-and-Notice” regime (the future sections 41.25, 41.26 and 41.27(3) of the Copyright Act), which will only come into force after a consultation process and the establishment of regulations that will be needed to implement the regime. The Canadian “Notice-and-Notice” regime, which differs from the “Notice-and-Take-Down” rules in the United States, will oblige Internet Service Providers (ISPs), AFTER BEING NOTIFIED of infringement allegations by a rights holder, to notify the relevant subscriber of the allegations received. ISPs will also be required to retain records that would enable the identification of the subscriber allegedly engaged in the infringing activity for a period of six months (or one year, if infringement proceedings are commenced in respect of the claimed infringement within six months of the initial notice from the rights holder). Once the regulations are ready, the date when the “Notice-and-Notice” provisions come into force will be published in a separate Order-in-Council.**

BUT...is that a requirement period for "subscriber allegedly engaged" after notice by rights holders or a blanket requirement for ALL subscribers regardless?

Any lawyers in here?

Link...

»www.canadiantechnologyiplaw.com/···n-force/



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Who7:

will oblige Internet Service Providers (ISPs), after being notified of infringement allegations by a rights holder, to notify the relevant subscriber of the allegations received. ISPs will also be required to retain records that would enable the identification of the subscriber allegedly engaged in the infringing activity for a period of six months (or one year, if infringement proceedings are commenced in respect of the claimed infringement within six months of the initial notice from the rights holder).

No it doesn't appear to be a blanket statement. I noticed Start is saying that over in their forum. But I don't think this is true. Extra retention is to be maintained *after* someone is notified (or the ISP is notified, that is). At least that's what it says.

But i'm not a lawyer. I think Roca (He's regulatory for CNOC) is, or has access to the CNOC lawyer.

So let's use a couple of examples here:

Start:
They maintain records for 1 year right now. So if you got a notice they would retain records on your for a minimum of 1.5 years to a max of 2 years. That's a lot of private info for someone to be holding onto.

Teksavvy:
They maintain records for 3 months right now. So if you got a notice they would retain records on your for a minimum of 9 months to a max of 1 year and 3 months years. That's a lot of private info for someone to be holding onto.

Ebox:
They maintain records indefinitely it appears and are to afraid to answer privacy related questions. Nor do they have a complaint privacy policy, or any policy compliant to fed reg's. *shrug*

But to me it clearly states *After*.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to see some ISP's comments on the matter.

What will also be interesting is if these extortionists go after data maintained by the likes of Bell or Videotron if you are with a reseller like start or Ebox or Teksavvy. After-all, their wholesale agreement appears to state they keep their own logs in addition to the resellers logs. Can of worms there. But, this is no secret to any of the ISP's who have been around for more than a few years.

Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to Who7

AFTER....is a big and very important word here.

Two "sources" and the internet link confirmed that there are no minimum requirement for logs. One of my "sources" was political and the "after" was done with intent.

From the conversation with Start, after a bit of fog, it appears that there is no legal requirement either other then what they want to consider "reasonable".

I would defiantly like to know if there is a legal requirement and not some bafflegag or excuse that suits the ISP's. My right to privacy is at stake.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Who7:

From the conversation with Start, after a bit of fog, it appears that there is no legal requirement either other then what they want to consider "reasonable".

I would defiantly like to know if there is a legal requirement and not some bafflegag or excuse that suits the ISP's. My right to privacy is at stake.

Yeah I read some of that.

You have to realize that the guy from Start is also the guy from CNOC, which is part of the "secret working group" on the gov's lawful access bill (ie. ISP cops with free reign to your data to hand over to the gov). So when he starts spouting how he needs to log what you say on facebook to prevent a pervert from being online, well... umm.. you know. He seems to be one the overzealous people taking things to the extreme end... plus considering his year long data retention policy.

Ref:
How Canada's Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

I know if I were part of a secret working group, and expressed support (Ref: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6506/125/) for lawful access as CNOC has done, (support to spy on what what you say on facebook and keep that for a year, like Start), I too would be "bafflebag of excuses".

I wouldn't be with this company just based on this guys support for lawful access and keeping the public in the dark. But that's me. Each to their own. For some people saving a dollar is worth it all that comes with it.

Who7

join:2012-12-18

1 edit

said by hm :

said by Who7:

From the conversation with Start, after a bit of fog, it appears that there is no legal requirement either other then what they want to consider "reasonable".

I would defiantly like to know if there is a legal requirement and not some bafflegag or excuse that suits the ISP's. My right to privacy is at stake.

Yeah I read some of that.

You have to realize that the guy from Start is also the guy from CNOC, which is part of the "secret working group" on the gov's lawful access bill (ie. ISP cops with free reign to your data to hand over to the gov). So when he starts spouting how he needs to log what you say on facebook to prevent a pervert from being online, well... umm.. you know. He seems to be one the overzealous people taking things to the extreme end... plus considering his year long data retention policy.

Ref:
How Canada's Telecom Companies Have Secretly Supported Internet Surveillance Legislation
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

I know if I were part of a secret working group, and expressed support (Ref: »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6506/125/) for lawful access as CNOC has done, (support to spy on what what you say on facebook and keep that for a year, like Start), I too would be "bafflebag of excuses".

I wouldn't be with this company just based on this guys support for lawful access and keeping the public in the dark. But that's me. Each to their own. For some people saving a dollar is worth it all that comes with it.

Are you sure about Start's involvement?

I'm starting to think that ISP may not want to compete on customer security and may agree to a long enough term to avoid the question.

On the other hand, good luck with that. They will be competing for the lowest rate and/or the most gigs, basically a race to the profitless bottom.

I for one will have no problem paying a bit extra for more privacy. And there is probably tens of thousands more like me.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Who7:

I for one will have no problem paying a bit extra for more privacy. And there is probably tens of thousands more like me.

Yep. Give it it's own terms of service, charge me extra, guarantee my privacy.

Sign me up.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

[
Are you sure about Start's involvement?

No, not 100%.
However, there is no denying CNOC's involvement. And If memory serves me right (someone else can correct me on this) the owner of start is the regulatory person for CNOC. So yeah I see a connection. But that is just my opinion. Other can formulate their own opinion.

In regards to guaranteed privacy, or absolute privacy. Not going to happen in Canada. The perv's actually do exist, the rest of us are caught up in "why it has to be done".

If ISP's need to or want to log, sure go ahead. But be open about it. And do fight for legislation that will see logs handed over only in certain criminal matters. Not this piddly multimillion dollar money making scheme by American trolls to screw people over. Otherwise they leave all of us exposed.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:22

said by hm :

CNOC, which is part of the "secret working group" on the gov's lawful (ie. ISP cops with free reign to your data to hand over to the gov).

That's news to me.

said by hm :

And If memory serves me right (someone else can correct me on this) the owner of start is the regulatory person for CNOC.

Yes, I am one of the people on the regulatory team - and currently hold the chair position, but it's a big group of people that work together to help combat stupid anti-competitive issues in the telecom framework and last time I checked we hadn't been issued police badges or evil villain cloaks yet.

said by hm :

But that is just my opinion. Other can formulate their own opinion.

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.


hm

@videotron.ca

said by rocca:

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.

Nah, just the two Michael Geist article's that were referenced in the post that you selectively forgot to make reference to or speak about.

*taps foot and awaits an answer to the two articles since you are indeed CNOC regulatory*

Seriously? It's the first you hear r read of these two articles?

Then who at CNOC is involved with it if you know nothing about it?

Would it be Bill and only Bill?

I find it kind of odd that you never heard of the "secret working group" (as written about by Geist) who represents an entire industry.

But since you claim to know nothing, feel free to find out about it from Bill and Geist and fill us in. Thanks.

And maybe you might might to ask why CNOC regulatory and all it's member know nothing as well.

Very odd indeed....

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

CNOC being involved in those talks was one of two options - be involved in the discussions and have some say/input or don't be involved at all. Being part of the working group did not mean they supported anything, it just meant they were there. The major ISP's won't see any issue with these measures since they can afford to put them in place. IISP's will not be as quick to welcome additional costs.



rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:22
reply to hm

I assure you that CNOC has not provided support/backing of C-30. An individual who attends a meeting doesn't mean support by that person nor an organization they are involved with.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Samgee

said by Samgee:

CNOC being involved in those talks was one of two options - be involved in the discussions and have some say/input or don't be involved at all. Being part of the working group did not mean they supported anything, it just meant they were there. The major ISP's won't see any issue with these measures since they can afford to put them in place. IISP's will not be as quick to welcome additional costs.

Are you involved in this CNOC "secret working group" who wants your facebook posts? If not, then I would prefer that Rocca, CNOC regulatory, answer it instead of uninvolved people with no clue making excuses for them. No offense intended. Just being honest.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

said by rocca:

I assure you that CNOC has not provided support/backing of C-30.

Then why does Dr Michael Geist say otherwise?

Who is representing CNOC at these "secret working group" meetings? As CNOC regulatory, surely you must know. So do you mind telling us who it is? Is it Bill?

And yes, as an industry group CNOC represent you, Mr. Start Communications. As well as Mr. Teksavvy.

Unless you come out with some sort of press release on CNOC's webpage stating which ISP you are and detest what CNOC (you) are coming out in favour of, as written about by Dr. Geist.

Just saying...


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:22

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.



hm

@videotron.ca

said by rocca:

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.

Well, since you are CNOC regulatory, I will contact him and tell him what he wrote is wrong and all a lie. We do talk on occasion... (as you do).

Will be interesting what he replies with.

Will CNOC regulatory write him as well and say what he wrote is not true, as I will?

Will CNOC (who represents you (Start) and Teksavvy and many others) post this on their CNOC webpage? Or just pretend it doesn't exist (as your first reply to me)? I think you should because, let's face it, Dr, Geist wrote it. And Dr. Geist has a huge following.

Or maybe CNOC regulatory is just playing dumb and calling Dr. Geist a lier just because Dr. Geist made them look bad by reporting how CNOC is supporting all this?

I mean, there are a couple of ways to look at this. Don't you agree?

Or do you still wish to say:
said by rocca:

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.

I mean, which is it?

Is Dr. Geist is on acid and a paranoid quack? Seems to me you are saying this, Rocca.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

rocca,

All these political issues aside (or the "wrongness" of the reporting aside, whatever it may be), Thanks for being open, honest, playing here, and replying to a nobody like me.

I appreciate it, and I'm sure others reading/following this appreciate it as well.

I respect that. As I'm sure others do.

For what it's worth (and maybe this may sound wrong, or come across wrong), you have the makings of another Rocky if you let your attitude show more.

However, as CNOC regulatory, I think you (as CNOC) have some explaining to do, as an industry group, to the people here in regards to all this.


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to hm

said by hm :

Are you involved in this CNOC "secret working group" who wants your facebook posts? If not, then I would prefer that Rocca, CNOC regulatory, answer it instead of uninvolved people with no clue making excuses for them. No offense intended. Just being honest.

No offense taken, and I find your comment about having no clue to be enjoyably ironic.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:22
reply to hm

I'm assuming you're referring to »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

"The secret working group is designed to create an open channel for discussion between telecom providers and government. As the uproar over Bill C-30 was generating front-page news across the country, Bell reached out to government to indicate that "it was working its way through C-30 with great interest" and expressed desire for a meeting to discuss disclosure of subscriber information. A few weeks later, it sent another request seeking details on equipment obligations to assist in its costing exercises."

Or, without the sensationalism perhaps:

"Telecom companies concerned with potential legislation meet with government to discuss those concerns and clarify the technical impact to their networks and the associated costs of such"

...but that doesn't sound nearly as cool as 'secret working group'.

I do however take offence to your severe twist of my statements saying that I've called Dr. Geist a 'liar' or implying he is a 'paranoid quack'. -- I said (quoting): "if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong". I have a great respect for Michael and being wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar nor do I see anywhere that explicitly says that CNOC agrees with the bill. I don't know what the sources were for that article, nor if the term 'providing support for the bill' was meant in the same way that 'providing required technical costing information for the bill' could be used interchangeably, but speaking as a member of CNOC I can say that we as an organization have not backed the bill. Full stop.

I know that when CNOC was formed there was much original scepticism here on DSLR, but over the past year I feel we really have proved ourselves to be a respectable organization which has made a positive difference to the industry. That said, I'm not the person to speak on behalf of CNOC itself, so if you want to ask Mr. Sandiford something directly then I suggest you reach out to him.



rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:22
reply to Samgee

+1


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to rocca

said by rocca:

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.

If you don't support it, then do what you need to do to declaw it.

Let's face it, you can be the most honest and most concerned CEO in the industry, but once you are hit and you have no legal recourse to protect your customers, then you will be targeted for bad publicity and anger. People will seek other providers even if there is no difference in substance.

In fact, the other consideration may turn out to be that the big boys have the re$ource$ to legally intimidate the smaller right holders. Even if there is a uniform legal retention period, their perceived "muscle" would swing in their favor.

As one businessman to another, you want this to go away or declawed. It will only make your life far more difficult.....potentially existential to your business.