dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31110
share rss forum feed


Fresh Meat

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

The more I think about it the more I think the 1000 IP's that were dropped from the "lawlsuit" were the dynamic IP's. The balance are either cable or static. with some dynamic maybe.

Which reminds me (I have dynamic), I haven't reset my modem the past 2 months and make another fake MAC to get a diff IP. I will do this within a week. I tend to do this every few months (as mods with IP access will know). Otherwise videotron will keep you on the same IP for almost a year.

That is not good, privacy wise. And people should know this.

That leaves a big hole no matter what log retentions are, even if log retention was 1 day. You have voip or other with the likes of teksavvy and it's a privacy problem with these type trolling lawsuits since they give you a static. I do believe it's part of the E-911 solution with TSI, which makes sense on one hand and a problem on the other hand. Marc would have to detail the specifics of this.

But a static = problem.

From a privacy standpoint, the only way I can see around this would be if Teksavvy could somehow separate voip from net and tunnel only net via a proxy to give a diff IP, while voip gives true IP.

Anyone on the same page following me? Or am I wrong?

Years ago there was a Montreal company who did this, their current name is/was Radial Point (Bell bought them). Prior to that they had a diff name and I don't recall it. U.S. FBI and CIA came down on them. Was on the front page of the Montreal gazette at the time. Late 90's. Since they couldn't trace people.

But that is the only way to prevent this. Similar to Acanac's online PC, but this went though like 12 PC's with diff IP's.

In other-words, proxy-chaining, which is better than the regular vpn.

Today, people could buy this type of service, or create their own like I do with hacked PC's as I detailed in the teksavvy forum. But a bought service like this.. hmm... I only know of one.. JonDo, »anonymous-proxy-servers.net/

The free service will chain you through 2 proxy's. The paid service through a few all in different jurisdictions. Thus diff priv laws and retention laws depending on the country of the chain in your proxy.

anyhow.... I'm sure with the group of people in this forum only a handful are following.

But if TSI would come out with this type of service, or even become a service operator for the likes of JonDo (and they could since they sit on BW and IP's), I would buy them.

Privacy sells.

Anyhow....

Marc, out of the 1000 IP's, how many of those are static?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by rednekcowboy:

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

said by resa1983:

said by rednekcowboy:

said by resa1983:

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

So at least 134 errors out of 1000 IP's that we know of? That's reliable!!

Or were we still at 2000 Ip's at that point? Either way, it's not good.

Voltage originally gave 4000 IPs or so. Came back a week later, dropped it to ~2200. Due to technical reasons, Teksavvy had to further pare that back to ~1100.

So roughly a 10% margin of error, or am I over-simplifying it?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Think its oversimplifying the numbers, yes, as they'd already begun work on the 4k, when the new list came in.

As well, they had to do the entire 2200 list.

So, 5% ish.

Keep in mind this was also done in a hurry so that they could get notices out, and that since then they've gone through the list twice again to make sure they got it correct.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.

Yeah. I agree with that.


hm

@videotron.ca

So back to the question posed further up...

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied, is there supposed to be a date issued now where the Judge will decide to allow or disallow the intervention by CIPPIC? If so, any info on when the Judge will sit down to decide this?

What goes on now? When?

Any info at all?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

I don't think anyone knows right now.

I *think* any judge at this point can pick up & make the decision on CIPPIC's intervention, and I think that's what we're waiting on now.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



JohnDohnut

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm

said by hm :

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,

Voltage has replied ?
Where, when ?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by JohnDohnut :

said by hm :

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied,

Voltage has replied ?
Where, when ?

Voltage objected to CIPPIC's intervention. CIPPIC responded to the objection.

»www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation

Newer stuff at the top, older stuff at the bottom.

Voltage's response is 1 of 2 and 1 of 2
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Gorgonzola

@videotron.ca

So any news this week?

I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution".

TSI was order to send the notice out upon receipt of the Voltage draft.

So.. um.. have these voltage vultures given TSI a draft yet? Anyone know?

Has the new Email gone out yet?

Marc, any news on anything?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

I posted an update in the TSI thread, but I'll repost here:

On Monday, the case was released to have CIPPIC's motion to intervene decided. No clue as to time frame.

Yesterday Judge Mandamin (the judge who recommended a 1 day special hearing for hearing the evidence), wrapped up a major case - most likely the major case he stated he thought would get in the way of him being able to take over the Voltage case.

Its very possible that now that Judge Mandamin's case is resolved, he will take over the Voltage case.

I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



Gorgonzola

@videotron.ca

said by resa1983:

I assume there's still no email out, as frankly they want people sharing it - more people to sue.

If there's no Email by tomorrow then CIPPIC is going to have call bullshit on voltage. As well as TSI's lawyers.

3 weeks is more than enough.


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

Plus theres this : Distributel is now FIGHTING the court order to disclose their customer information!

So I guess theres more action afoot - On other fronts.


bullwinkle

join:2011-03-19
Nepean, ON

And south of the border...

"IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model.""

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml



hm

@videotron.ca

said by bullwinkle:

And south of the border...

"IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions... In a lengthy order that reads more like a smackdown, Wright attacks Gibb's abuse of the legal system and thoroughly dismantles his so-called "business model.""

»www.techdirt.com/articles/201302···ns.shtml

That's quite a nice analogy the judge makes.

This snapshot allegedly shows that the Defendants were downloading the copyrighted work—at least at that moment in time. But downloading a large file like a video takes time; and depending on a user’s Internet-connection speed, it may take a long time. In fact, it may take so long that the user may have terminated the download. The user may have also terminated the download for other reasons. To allege copyright infringement based on an IP snapshot is akin to alleging theft based on a single surveillance camera shot: a photo of a child reaching for candy from a display does not automatically mean he stole it. No Court would allow a lawsuit to be filed based on that amount of evidence... ....

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

That story is based on
»fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02···eration/

Really good site that gets decisions out quickly, and has a bunch of copyright lawyers (defendant counsel) posting there.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gorgonzola

said by Gorgonzola :

So any news this week?

I believe this is now week 3 since voltage complained to the court that there are still TSI IP's that must stop sharing because of the great financial harm they are creating by this "commercial distribution".



Marc, I believe this now makes it one month.

Any news at all?

Get the draft yet to send to people?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to hm

Michael Geist just tweeted the following:

"Ct grants CIPPIC motion for leave to intervene in TekSavvy - Voltage copyright case. Have right to file evidence & cross-examine"

This is gonna get gruesome for Voltage.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



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

Still no draft.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

NICE!

Any link to the judges ruling? Shake Geist up a bit to get a link.

And still no Draft given to Teksavvy?


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to TSI Marc

said by TSI Marc:

Still no draft.

Not surprising. We all know they don't want people to stop sharing, cuz it means they might be able to sue more people.

That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

:/

Ty For the reply Marc..



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

We'll have the doc up shortly on our site: »www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

That would be a good thing to bring up during the next hearing.. lol.

OoOoOhH I'm sure they will.
heh
It shows volumes.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc

TY!



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

We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning..
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by TSI Marc:

We highlighted similar behavior in court last time... I.e. they could have asked for this at any time since the beginning..

Especially considering they wrote the original letter that went out to customers.. They could have added it to that.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


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

Exactly!