| reply to wiggum
Re: Teksavvy Voltage motion - Looking for some advice Edit: wrong thread |
|
| reply to John Doe 187
How to fight Copyright Trolls
Speculative Invoicing Handbook, Download PDF
»www.dropbox.com/s/bc8nr49vq0ukf9···olls.pdf |
|
| reply to wiggum
said by wiggum:I believe they may be looking for people to give them standing to oppose Voltage at the hearing on the 14th, and may be willing to help you out over the long term too.
Possibly, but I think it's more likely that they would want to maintain the public interest neutrality that they've asserted in their motion papers, and avoid a direct advocacy role on behalf of one or more individuals identified. |
|
| The stance taken by Teksavvy *in my opinion* is a coward's one. This has nothing to do with being guilty or innocent at this stage and everything to do with privacy. How can some company with a history of extortion tactics be granted information base only solely gathered IP? This is the most ridiculous notion I have heard and Companies like Teksavvy should be fighting this instead of taking a neutral side... This case could possibly set a precedence which could open a new can of worms for Canada! So in my opinion Teksavvy taking a neutral stance goes everything they claim to stand for.
Does anyone actually think it's the responsibility of the accused to show up with a lawyer to oppose this initial motion?? That's the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet. This is the JOB of the ISP! |
|
MFido
join:2012-10-19
kudos:1 | Luckily it is your opinion ... which doesn't matter ... |
|
| When they come for your bank account don't act surprised. After all you might be infringing copyrights too, you simply didn't prove it in court... yet. |
|
| reply to Brandon411
said by Brandon411 : This is the JOB of the ISP!
No, their job is to provide Internet Service and obey the law.
From what I can tell they've been doing just that.
They also gave their users a head's up which was a great service. |
|
| reply to Brandon411
said by Brandon411 :Does anyone actually think it's the responsibility of the accused to show up with a lawyer to oppose this initial motion?? Note - I am not a lawyer, so take this with a non-lawyerly grain of salt.
If the accused wants to be 100% assured that the privacy issues are raised in court in reference to the motion for disclosure, then, yes, that individual should make sure that he/she has appropriate legal representation at the hearing, who can oppose the motion on some or all of the grounds that have already been raised here and elsewhere. An ISP may choose to oppose on the same grounds - or not - depending on the legal advice they receive. Third parties such as CIPPIC may seek to intervene in order to raise the same issues, but their participation is not an entitlement, and they might not be allowed to participate.
The subject of such a disclosure motion, however, is absolutely entitled to be represented, so again, the only way for the subject of a disclosure motion to guarantee that someone will be able to argue about the privacy implications would be to arrange specific representation themselves.
said by Brandon411 :This is the JOB of the ISP!
Well, no. The job of the ISP is to fulfill the terms of the contracts they have with their customers. They are not obligated to advocate on your behalf in court. Whether they choose to do so in specific circumstances will be based on the legal advice that they receive with respect to risks, probabilities, potential liabilities, and their own best interests as a corporate entity.
Let's remember, too, that TekSavvy did not simply hand over information to Voltage. They requested that the court postpone the motion hearing to allow enough time to notify those affected - which in turn has allowed CIPPIC to step forward, and given those affected the chance to prepare as they see fit. I don't think that TekSavvy is getting enough credit for that good act. |
|
| reply to Rastan
That's a great read - thanks for the link. My only caveat would be that this is written from the British perspective, and (I think) there's a bit more history there with these issues than we've seen in Canada. I suspect that ISPs and their law firms here may be a little more risk-averse until we've seen the waters tested a few times. |
|
| reply to Dr Facts
Re: Teksavvy Voltage motion - Looking for some advice From what I can tell of the new bill or heard they are requried to give notice to those individuals accused. So they are basically doing the minimum? |
|
|
|
| reply to bullwinkle
@Bullwinkle
Teksavvy is basically handing over the information as they said they will not be opposing the motion. The only reason they showed up to court was to ask for a delay since they screwed up the notifications. So in short that is the min. they should be doing. Is this not the case? Could be mistaken but not sure how some people is lead to believe Teksavvy is doing everyone such a BIG favor and is some hero but last I checked in the Bill they are required to give notice.
@Dr Facts
I understand that. But understand Teksavvy is looking out for number one... themselves... and hence why they did not oppose the motion. Does anyone actually believe what Teksavvy is doing is correct by not opposing? I'm pretty sure the majority of the public would disagree but like I said hey... you gotta look out for #1. Good job taking care of your customers TSI by doing the min. I'm sure they will grant you the same courtesy when it comes to ISP loyalty. |
|
| reply to John Doe 187
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I hope doing this through court won't cost me that much or put me in more financial problems.
Take care. |
|
| reply to wiggum
I think my decision will be to wait for the outcome of the case Jan 14th. If I get news that my info is being handed over I will contact a lawyer ASAP that day. Do you think this is the best approach? I am not sure if contacting them at this point is best and might cost me some cash$$$? |
|
| reply to bullwinkle
said by [bquote=Brandon411 :Let's remember, too, that TekSavvy did not simply hand over information to Voltage. They requested that the court postpone the motion hearing to allow enough time to notify those affected - which in turn has allowed CIPPIC to step forward, and given those affected the chance to prepare as they see fit. I don't think that TekSavvy is getting enough credit for that good act.
I would like to ask what the difference between 1 and 2 is?
1. I will notify you, then hand over your information to a jerk
2. I will hand over your information to a jerk
Frankly, I don't see a difference. At the end, Teksavvy will happily hand over your private information to a third party and doesn't give a sh*t about what that will put its customers into.
Here comes two questions.
1. Why does Teksavvy gather my private information and keep it for 90 days without any good reasons?
2. Why does Teksavvy refuse to take action in court to fulfill his obligation of protecting customer's privacy? Don't tell me notifying its customers by saying "I will give you up" and roll over is a good act of protecting customers' privacy. |
|
| reply to bullwinkle
It's scary to think that someone like Voltage can demand my personal information base on IPs  I hope someone stands up to them. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to TraderOne
said by TraderOne :said by [bquote=Brandon411 :Let's remember, too, that TekSavvy did not simply hand over information to Voltage. They requested that the court postpone the motion hearing to allow enough time to notify those affected - which in turn has allowed CIPPIC to step forward, and given those affected the chance to prepare as they see fit. I don't think that TekSavvy is getting enough credit for that good act.
I would like to ask what the difference between 1 and 2 is? 1. I will notify you, then hand over your information to a jerk 2. I will hand over your information to a jerk Frankly, I don't see a difference. At the end, Teksavvy will happily hand over your private information to a third party and doesn't give a sh*t about what that will put its customers into. Here comes two questions. 1. Why does Teksavvy gather my private information and keep it for 90 days without any good reasons? 2. Why does Teksavvy refuse to take action in court to fulfill his obligation of protecting customer's privacy? Don't tell me notifying its customers by saying "I will give you up" and roll over is a good act of protecting customers' privacy. The difference is that with 1, you have the option of getting yourself a lawyer first to fight the court order that would reveal your information. With the 2nd, I don't believe you get time to find a lawyer and fight the court order before your information has to be legally handed over under penalty from the courts.
1.
The 'private' information that Voltage wants, is essentially, your billing information (minus your actual credit card numbers, etc) which TSI needs to keep on file as long as you're a customer.. They need to know name, address, phone numbers, etc. ie, Contact info & address of service.
I think the only thing they keep 90 days, is the IP address history. I'm sorry, unlike some others, I do believe child porn investigations are a good reason to keep IP history for 90 days. That kind of scum deserve to be locked in a hole.
But the 90 days is also for billing discrepancies to be dealt with, as well as dealing with those DMC charges Bell doesn't bother charging TSI immediately for, and sometimes bills DMC charges for no actual rollout. Those need to be fought, and they need to have supporting info.
2.
The thing is, that Teksavvy didn't have to inform customers about the court order until AFTER it was already issued. They also didn't have to fight the court order - a few other ISPs in November didn't.
TSI fought for extension of the court order in order to inform their customers, and buy people time to get lawyers and make a decision as to what to do.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| reply to John Doe 187
Don't worry too too much about this.
There already precedents dealing with these types of cases and its why no case of this type has been won.
'Your IP is like a phone number and though its under your name there no way to know for sure who on the other end.
You could be sharing the internet or friend could be online and so on.
Never cave into this type of scare tactic. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by Pharaoh11:Don't worry too too much about this.
There already precedents dealing with these types of cases and its why no case of this type has been won.
'Your IP is like a phone number and though its under your name there no way to know for sure who on the other end.
You could be sharing the internet or friend could be online and so on.
Never cave into this type of scare tactic.
The problem is that the precedents are all from 2004 (back when there were different laws), and from the US (which has different laws than us). Who knows what'll happen.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
 elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | said by resa1983:The problem is that the precedents are all from 2004 (back when there were different laws), and from the US (which has different laws than us). Who knows what'll happen.
Precedents aren't considered null and void just because parliament changes the law. Precedents usually form the basis/reasoning for the creation of an updated version of said legislation.
Every time they update a Law doesn't mean they start over from scratch. ALL decisions to date regarding an issue are relevant UNLESS a judge's decision has been reversed on appeal. |
|
