dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to shikotee

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Nice to see I'm not the lone voice here. I absolutely 100% agree to this following statement from Knopf's blog post:

It is a legitimate question to ask whether an ISP, rather than categorically deciding a priori not to resist disclosure motions, should at least be expected to review the supporting documentation, to get an expert opinion as to whether it meets the requirement of the law as laid down by the courts and Parliament, to notify all of its customers of the proceeding (if it is too burdensome to notify only those whose IP address has been singled out by the would-be plaintiff), to post copies of these documents, and to explain why, if it is the case, that it believes that there is no reasonable basis to challenge the disclosure motion on privacy grounds.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

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

said by jkoblovsky:

Nice to see I'm not the lone voice here. I absolutely 100% agree to this following statement from Knopf's blog post:

It is a legitimate question to ask whether an ISP, rather than categorically deciding a priori not to resist disclosure motions, should at least be expected to review the supporting documentation, to get an expert opinion as to whether it meets the requirement of the law as laid down by the courts and Parliament, to notify all of its customers of the proceeding (if it is too burdensome to notify only those whose IP address has been singled out by the would-be plaintiff), to post copies of these documents, and to explain why, if it is the case, that it believes that there is no reasonable basis to challenge the disclosure motion on privacy grounds.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!

I doubt it'll be decided before court on the 14th, as they'll want to argue additional reasons as to why they wish to intervene.. There are additional ones other than the ones in their motion to intervene filed last month.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

2 edits

said by resa1983 See Profile
I doubt it'll be decided before court on the 14th, as they'll want to argue additional reasons as to why they wish to intervene.. There are additional ones other than the ones in their motion to intervene filed last month.

Knopf blog raises a lot of my concerns with respect to the legalese of all of this. Knopf also represented the CIPPIC the last time this came up.

Even though the CIPPIC is involved here TSI still needs to come clean to it's customers with respect to why they are not directly challenging this. Marc statements with respect to not challenging this due to the "new copyright legislation" are false and misleading within law. Knopf who is one of this country's top copyright experts and lawyers pretty much backed up that claim with this post.

The privacy implications of this are huge. I've written about this, in fact I had a lengthy conversation today with an internet security expert, who pretty much is stating that there are currently no laws around data-mining. It's quite easy to obtain information and build a profile through social media sites, facebook in particular (whether it's private or not). The privacy commissioner has warned several times on this, stating that information obtained this way can lead to false profiling. This is one of the reasons why the privacy community is strongly recommending a re-write of privacy legislation to ensure that there is no misuse of consumer information.

Once they have your name, they can pretty much build a case against you. There is an entire industry built around that right now. We're seeing pretty much the tip of the ice burg here and because of current privacy legislation it's pretty much legal.

There is a forthcoming white paper on the subject that in fact will be presented to the government in the next few months. I'm pretty sure I'll be getting a copy of that.

If a company is choosing to expose it's customer base to this, the least they owe is an explanation as to why they are doing it and why they feel the plaintiff's evidence is strong enough, that they have chosen not to directly oppose it.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to resa1983

Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:

Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

said by jkoblovsky:

Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:

Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material.

The implication is that the court must allow at least one party to participate for the purpose of cross-examination of the motion, regardless of out-of-court agreements between the parties cited in the motion. Otherwise, we're looking at bad justice since it would imply that the court can ban cross-examination, thereby voiding a fundamental principle of Canadian law. Consequently, if no other party asks to participate, then by default the CIPPIC will be allowed to speak, since it will be the only party available for cross-examination. But let's not rely on that bit of logic.

It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

The privacy implications of this are huge. I've written about this, in fact I had a lengthy conversation today with an internet security expert, who pretty much is stating that there are currently no laws around data-mining. It's quite easy to obtain information and build a profile through social media sites, facebook in particular (whether it's private or not). The privacy commissioner has warned several times on this, stating that information obtained this way can lead to false profiling. This is one of the reasons why the privacy community is strongly recommending a re-write of privacy legislation to ensure that there is no misuse of consumer information.

Which in and of itself is a really good reason to NOT use Facebook & other social media sites; to always use different pseudonyms on each different site/forum you use; to use TOR or other means of obfuscating the IP trail back to you -- even if you NEVER do anything illegal.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

[

It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.

^^^^
This

But I'll bet that at least one John Doe will be represented by their own counsel on the 14th. It would be nice if that counsel was Knopf. So somebody would have to pay a lot of money up-front to get Knopf down from Ottawa - retainers, travel time, travel disbursements, court time, hotel, etc....

CIPPIC could still get involved (I think) if they were named by John Doe as co-counsel. IANAL

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Nice to see I'm not the lone voice here. I absolutely 100% agree to this following statement from Knopf's blog post:

It is a legitimate question to ask whether an ISP, rather than categorically deciding a priori not to resist disclosure motions, should at least be expected to review the supporting documentation, to get an expert opinion as to whether it meets the requirement of the law as laid down by the courts and Parliament, to notify all of its customers of the proceeding (if it is too burdensome to notify only those whose IP address has been singled out by the would-be plaintiff), to post copies of these documents, and to explain why, if it is the case, that it believes that there is no reasonable basis to challenge the disclosure motion on privacy grounds.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!

in a way i hope cippic cant be an intervenor then it will show you why you want an isp to have a hammer rather then a revolving door.
i warned rocky that on top of the caps issue that copyright will be a game killer for them....

funny

join:2010-12-22
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:

Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material.

ya god forbid they have to actually have some facts and evidence ...who needs that right?