dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to dillyhammer

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

said by dillyhammer:

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by El Quintron:

said by dillyhammer:

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on.

I may be wrong, but isn't this considered "gambling" with your customers information on the line?


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

1 recommendation

reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

Shrewd idea, if that is in fact the case. I'd like to think that was the case. If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

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


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by dillyhammer:

If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

Mike

If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by El Quintron:

said by dillyhammer:

If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

Mike

If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that.

I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
said by Tx:

I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped.

Well, if they have an agreement with Voltage NOT to oppose the motion then this whole thing backfires big time. The optics of it all is awful. Really awful.

As EQ mentioned - I hope it doesn't come to that.

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

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to Tx
I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


hm

@videotron.ca
said by jkoblovsky:

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information.

Yup, and Howard Knopf called out both Teksavvy and Teksavvy's legal counsel on this.

But if you ask me, in my personal opinion, I get the feeling this is what Geist told TSI to do, and this is all Geists and CIPPIC's doing. It's Geists and cippics wet-dream to be running to the rescue in this type mass-p2p lawsuit.

But if this is really TSI's doing, then we will see... As you said it could come back to bite them hard on the ass instead of them standing their ground and challenging it all from the beginning.

Monday will tell. Maybe. If it isn't pushed back again. It will either be (in my un-expert opinion):
A) Disclose. End of story.
B) Cippic granted, date set for the future
C) Disclose, TSI & TSI's lawyers finally grow a pair and pipe up

"C" will have two out-come (as I see it in my un-expert opinion)
C1) Per agreement, blah blah blah, disclose it. End.
C2) or, Judge accepts the fight put forth (if they grow a pair). Date set for future.

Any other chess moves?


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly.

Oh trust me, i don't disagree with you. I'm sure a few around here can confirm my very passionate view on this matter. I've been a pretty loud voice on here about it. Enough so that Marc got upset with me.

I'm caught between a rock and a hard place... i truly respect and like Marc and some of his staff (especially the ones that roam these forums).... honestly good people, but then my issues become far more serious when it comes to handing this information over.


JoinDoes

@voxility.net
reply to jkoblovsky
I did write to CIPPIC and offer them the chance to be my authorized representative in court so they could have guaranteed standing.

They turned me down.

Which was nice.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to hm
Why would you think TSI is in bed with CIPPIC or Giest?
I mean it just looks bad on them from a customer's point of view to not challenge the motion and let someone else handle the situation. In my opinion it's just a bad business decision and will hurt TSI more than help.

This whole ideal is ridiculous in the first place (commercial infringement) and TSI is slapping all their customers in the face for not opposing.

Who7

join:2012-12-18
TSI will not be able to hide from a backlash if the thing sails through for the trolls.

You can't build a business on reputation for the little guy that cares.....and then screw 2000 peoples privacy to trolls.

I for one will move even if there is no advantage to it.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
Primus is offering unlimited DSL 7 Mbps @ $40 or so advertises Iam moving to them. So they advertise anyways.

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

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly.

My stance as of now:

1) TSI got a delay to inform customers and to try and ensure that the IP's were accurate as they could determine. Score: +2 for TSI
2) TSI bought time for CIPPIC to get involved. Add +1 for TSI
3) Everything else TSI related ..... Add +/- 0 as it's too early to tell

4) Knopf & others...... Blogging is one thing. For not jumping in pro bono to either assist TSI or volunteer to represent at least a couple "John Doe's" on the 14th if they feel so strongly on the matter. Score: -2


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to Who7
said by Who7:

TSI will not be able to hide from a backlash if the thing sails through for the trolls.

You can't build a business on reputation for the little guy that cares.....and then screw 2000 peoples privacy to trolls.

I for one will move even if there is no advantage to it.

Agreed. Agreed. And yep, me too. Might anyway, waiting for Teksavvy's cable offering Cogecoland (Hamilton) for far too long. This is just the straw.

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

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to MaynardKrebs
I've just re-read that thread "why we don't oppose". I found something that didn't occur to me before. You made me think of it just now.

TSI's argument is that the best way to not get involved is to just not do it in the first place. Good and all, but that's besides TSI's main argument. And this is that they will not argue the merits of the motion. But here's the problem. In checking whether the IP's were assigned to the same persons as they are now, this is part of "arguing the merits of the motion". Sure, we could say that's just a technical detail. But here's the problem again, the motion itself is wholly technical, and the accuracy of the allegations/IP/persons association is an integral part of the merit of the motion. Consequently, TSI did argue the merit of the motion by the mere act of checking the accuracy of the IP/persons association. They didn't do so in court, but it's the same act.

In order for TSI to abide by their agreement not to argue the merit of the motion, TSI should have left their logs as they were, not verified them at all, and disclosed them as is to Voltage, by court order of course. This way, the agreement between TSI and Voltage is intact. But this way, innocents are indeed targeted by the motion - as the act of verification demonstrated.

This is a bit of a paradox. TSI cannot in good conscience continue to say they will not argue the merit of the motion, after they did just that by checking the accuracy of the information being motioned for disclosure. Yet they can't break their agreement with Voltage either by opposing the motion in court through arguing the merit of the motion further.

Also, TSI's argument that the best way to not get involved is to not do it in the first place is refuted by the very act of verification, which proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very best way to not get involved is to not be a TSI customer in the first place, and then later on to not be a TSI customer once a motion to disclose is made. Because even if a TSI customer did not do it in the first place, he can still get involved due to inaccurate or obsolete logs. And even a TSI customer did do it, he can still avoid getting involved for the same reason.

That thing with verifying log accuracy being an act of arguing the merit of the motion didn't occur to me before. Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, not an expert. But it did occur to me just now. So I have to wonder just how good TSI's counsel was when they decided not to oppose. As good as me? Hehe.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.
Expand your moderator at work

jkoblovsky

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

2 edits
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

said by MaynardKrebs See Profile
My stance as of now:

1) TSI got a delay to inform customers and to try and ensure that the IP's were accurate as they could determine. Score: +2 for TSI
2) TSI bought time for CIPPIC to get involved. Add +1 for TSI
3) Everything else TSI related ..... Add +/- 0 as it's too early to tell

4) Knopf & others...... Blogging is one thing. For not jumping in pro bono to either assist TSI or volunteer to represent at least a couple "John Doe's" on the 14th if they feel so strongly on the matter. Score: -2

That's all and good, but it's TSI's responsibility under law to directly protect it's customers privacy, not the CIPPIC, Knopf or any others. Why should anyone step up to the plate here to protect your privacy when under law that's TSI's legal and direct responsibility here. If I had it my way the CIPPIC would not be involved to protect TSI's business interests here. That can end up being a lot more unethical than what Voltage is trying to do.

By commenting and blogging actually does help TSI. I've been very vocal about the fact that the legal advice and stance given actually puts TSI at much more legal risks as a result of how this went down. The business risk comes when the privacy community starts to realize that due to the stance TSI has taken, proves that there is very much a lack of oversight on your privacy by both parties, directly by TSI and Voltage. Both have a direct responsibility under law, and regardless if the CIPPIC is involved, TSI could still be made liable for not directly putting cross-examination on the evidence to ensure it's responsibilities under law around privacy are fulfilled. Something Knopf also hinted too in his post.

I understand both sides of the legal arguments on how TSI has handled this. Both as a business person myself, and as a consumer advocate. Both parties Teksavvy and Voltage may have very well acted in a way that is self serving. It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to JonyBelGeul
What Teksavvy has done for customers in this case
...my humble opinion

1 - COST AVOIDANCE
Frankly, I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who took the time to check things out before handing over (IP, customer info) pairs, and get me removed from any list if I was erroneously on it - as that will save me thousands in legal fees I don't have to spend to argue it wasn't me or my IP involved in anything.

2 - ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
I'll go further and say that I'd also rather be the customer of an ISP who made sure that I was notified ahead of any court order such that I had time to engage counsel to represent me as "John Doe" at any court date leading up to the disclosure of PI (personally identifying) information vs. being ambushed by an extortion letter in the mail.

3 - Cooperating with "Friends of the Court"
TSI welcomed CIPPIC's participation at the hearing in December.
You won't find Bell or Rogers doing that. Nor will you find Videotron doing that. And not likely Shaw, despite their involvement in the BMG case nearly a decade ago. Why? Because they are all "content" companies now with a vested interest in extracting as much money from you as possible - even it it means suing their own customer for copyrght infringement with data gleaned from their own records. How much notice do you think they'd give you before an extortion letter arrives in your mail? Or much more likely just a line item on your monthly bill "Commercial Copyright Infringement Charge - $25,000.00" and a direct debit from your bank account. How long do you think it would take to get your money back if an incumbent content owner ever admitted a mistake? Does the concept of hell freezing over ring a bell? Of course their new bill with the "Commercial Copyright Infringement Charge" line on it will include a cheery 'Thanks for doing business with Rogers' or Bell or Videotron or Shaw on it.

4 - FORCING A COURT ORDER ISSUANCE VS. BEING A WEASEL
And I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who went to court to force the plaintiff to justify their actions to a judge BEFORE my ISP handed the plaintiff any of my info.

In the past 4 months or so, only one ISP has met all four of the foregoing, and that's Teksavvy. All the other weasel ISP's who were presented with demands from Voltage caved in and did ZERO for their customers.

TSI is NOT my lawyer, nor do I expect them to be. You shouldn't either.

If I want to have professional legal representation, then TSI has bought me the time to hire my own.
If I don't want to have professional legal representation, well at least I had the time to make that decision.
If I want to rely on the charity of others (CIPPIC) and the hope that a judge will grant them standing, then TSI also bought me the time to make that choice too.

jkoblovsky

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

1 edit
reply to JonyBelGeul
said by JonyBelGeul:

I've just re-read that thread "why we don't oppose". I found something that didn't occur to me before. You made me think of it just now.

TSI's argument is that the best way to not get involved is to just not do it in the first place. Good and all, but that's besides TSI's main argument. And this is that they will not argue the merits of the motion. But here's the problem. In checking whether the IP's were assigned to the same persons as they are now, this is part of "arguing the merits of the motion". Sure, we could say that's just a technical detail. But here's the problem again, the motion itself is wholly technical, and the accuracy of the allegations/IP/persons association is an integral part of the merit of the motion. Consequently, TSI did argue the merit of the motion by the mere act of checking the accuracy of the IP/persons association. They didn't do so in court, but it's the same act.

In order for TSI to abide by their agreement not to argue the merit of the motion, TSI should have left their logs as they were, not verified them at all, and disclosed them as is to Voltage, by court order of course. This way, the agreement between TSI and Voltage is intact. But this way, innocents are indeed targeted by the motion - as the act of verification demonstrated.

This is a bit of a paradox. TSI cannot in good conscience continue to say they will not argue the merit of the motion, after they did just that by checking the accuracy of the information being motioned for disclosure. Yet they can't break their agreement with Voltage either by opposing the motion in court through arguing the merit of the motion further.

Also, TSI's argument that the best way to not get involved is to not do it in the first place is refuted by the very act of verification, which proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very best way to not get involved is to not be a TSI customer in the first place, and then later on to not be a TSI customer once a motion to disclose is made. Because even if a TSI customer did not do it in the first place, he can still get involved due to inaccurate or obsolete logs. And even a TSI customer did do it, he can still avoid getting involved for the same reason.

That thing with verifying log accuracy being an act of arguing the merit of the motion didn't occur to me before. Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, not an expert. But it did occur to me just now. So I have to wonder just how good TSI's counsel was when they decided not to oppose. As good as me? Hehe.

Good argument however unnecessary when you look at what the CIPPIC has challenged the evidence on, the position not to oppose has actually put TSI's business at greater risk than what would be stipulated if they opposed right away. I have a hard time believing that they would put the business at risk and call in the CIPPIC only to challenge the technical specs at a later date, when that may not even be necessary due to the arguments the CIPPIC has made.

But I do believe in the end TSI will challenge, this, and the reason why is because they are obligated under law to do so, and if they don't there's going to be a huge backlash from not just TSI customers, but the privacy community as well I would suspect.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

What Teksavvy has done for customers in this case
...my humble opinion

1 - COST AVOIDANCE
Frankly, I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who took the time to check things out before handing over (IP, customer info) pairs, and get me removed from any list if I was erroneously on it - as that will save me thousands in legal fees I don't have to spend to argue it wasn't me or my IP involved in anything.

2 - ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
I'll go further and say that I'd also rather be the customer of an ISP who made sure that I was notified ahead of any court order such that I had time to engage counsel to represent me as "John Doe" at any court date leading up to the disclosure of PI (personally identifying) information vs. being ambushed by an extortion letter in the mail.

3 - Cooperating with "Friends of the Court"
TSI welcomed CIPPIC's participation at the hearing in December.
You won't find Bell or Rogers doing that. Nor will you find Videotron doing that. And not likely Shaw, despite their involvement in the BMG case nearly a decade ago. Why? Because they are all "content" companies now with a vested interest in extracting as much money from you as possible - even it it means suing their own customer for copyrght infringement with data gleaned from their own records. How much notice do you think they'd give you before an extortion letter arrives in your mail? Or much more likely just a line item on your monthly bill "Commercial Copyright Infringement Charge - $25,000.00" and a direct debit from your bank account. How long do you think it would take to get your money back if an incumbent content owner ever admitted a mistake? Does the concept of hell freezing over ring a bell? Of course their new bill with the "Commercial Copyright Infringement Charge" line on it will include a cheery 'Thanks for doing business with Rogers' or Bell or Videotron or Shaw on it.

4 - FORCING A COURT ORDER ISSUANCE VS. BEING A WEASEL
And I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who went to court to force the plaintiff to justify their actions to a judge BEFORE my ISP handed the plaintiff any of my info.

In the past 4 months or so, only one ISP has met all four of the foregoing, and that's Teksavvy. All the other weasel ISP's who were presented with demands from Voltage caved in and did ZERO for their customers.

TSI is NOT my lawyer, nor do I expect them to be. You shouldn't either.

If I want to have professional legal representation, then TSI has bought me the time to hire my own.
If I don't want to have professional legal representation, well at least I had the time to make that decision.
If I want to rely on the charity of others (CIPPIC) and the hope that a judge will grant them standing, then TSI also bought me the time to make that choice too.

As you said you're not a lawyer and a lawyer and copyright expert disagrees with you.

So remember that when you're out hundreds for a consultation with a lawyer when you may be mistakenly identified as a pirate and unfortunately need to defend yourself.

This isn't life, you don't just "happen" upon the need to defend yourself at times in your life. This isn't something people need to save up for as a just in case. It's the responsibility of those we entrust our information with to defend the privacy of their customers when a known troll is out extorting people. This company isn't unknown for this, it's well known, and when trolls come knocking at our doors we don't just do as they ask.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to MaynardKrebs
I highly suggest you read and comprehend what is happening before you make your ridiculous points. You seem delusional to what is happening...

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

4 - FORCING A COURT ORDER ISSUANCE VS. BEING A WEASEL
And I'd rather be the customer of an ISP who went to court to force the plaintiff to justify their actions to a judge BEFORE my ISP handed the plaintiff any of my info.

In the past 4 months or so, only one ISP has met all four of the foregoing, and that's Teksavvy. All the other weasel ISP's who were presented with demands from Voltage caved in and did ZERO for their customers.

TSI is NOT my lawyer, nor do I expect them to be. You shouldn't either.

TSI is not going to force Voltage to justify their motion. In fact, they agreed not to do that.

I don't expect TSI to be my lawyer. That's absurd. There's more ways to help a defendant than to be a lawyer. TSI would play a few roles. Expert witness, and party to an agreement - the privacy policy - between TSI and its customers.

It's important to note that the defendant in the motion to disclose proper is not TSI's customers, but TSI itself. TSI is the one being asked to disclose information. TSI is the one defending against this motion. However, the information being requested does not concern TSI itself, but its customers, therefore allows any of those to become defendant on their own behalf. Only if TSI's customers do this are they defendant in this motion, and only if Voltage sues TSI's customers afterwards do TSI's customers become cited defendants. Otherwise, TSI is sole defendant in this motion.

It's also important to note that the duty of TSI in this motion is not to defend on behalf of its customers, but on TSI's own behalf, since TSI must abide by the policy agreement as well, which governs the information being requested. The motion to disclose is a challenge to this privacy agreement.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

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

said by JonyBelGeul See Profile
TSI is not going to force Voltage to justify their motion. In fact, they agreed not to do that.

Depending on the legal risks, it might be a good idea for TSI to re-evaluate the terms of that agreement. Anything at this point is still very much a possibility.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

2 edits
reply to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:

Good argument however unnecessary when you look at what the CIPPIC has challenged the evidence on, the position not to oppose has actually put TSI's business at greater risk than what would be stipulated if they opposed right away. I have a hard time believing that they would put the business at risk and call in the CIPPIC only to challenge the technical specs at a later date, when that may not even be necessary due to the arguments the CIPPIC has made.

But I do believe in the end TSI will challenge, this, and the reason why is because they are obligated under law to do so, and if they don't there's going to be a huge backlash from not just TSI customers, but the privacy community as well I would suspect.

I think TSI can oppose anyway. I have a few ideas how this can be done.

The privacy agreement. This agreement is an extension of privacy laws, therefore is bigger than an out-of-court agreement, especially one that basically breaks the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. So, an argument can be made that TSI was in error to agree not to oppose in the first place, as it puts them in a bad position with their own customers, and with privacy laws (probably much worse position to be in).

TSI did oppose motion to disclose by the mere act of verifying accuracy of information being requested by Voltage, i.e., arguing the merit of the motion, the merit being technical accuracy of the information requested by the motion. If TSI already argued the merit of the motion, then the out-of-court agreement is rendered nul and void, thus there's no obstacle to oppose in court.

The sole defendant in motion to disclose is TSI. If TSI keeps their agreement with Voltage not to oppose, then the motion is most likely to be granted without much fuss. That's bad justice. Agreeing not to oppose basically forces the court to fulfill the defendant's duty. That's not the court's duty.

The actual targets of the motion is not TSI, but TSI's customers, and Voltage is known not to prosecute, but instead to threaten with "pay or else" only, for the obvious purpose of taking advantage of the disparity between a payoff and the costs of fighting in court, therefore for the obvious purpose of extortion. TSI has a duty to protect their customers from abuse by a third party.

Defendant in motion is TSI, not TSI's customers. Yet TSI's customers are most likely the ones who will defend, at their own costs. Agreeing not to oppose basically transfers TSI's duty to fulfill their obligations defined by the privacy agreement, to their customers. In other words, TSI's customers are now acting as TSI's counsel in defending TSI against a challenge to the privacy agreement, challenge which opposes TSI's duty to abide by this privacy agreement. Yet like I said, at TSI's customers costs. Basically, TSI gets legal representation from their own customers for free. That's quite a convoluted solution.

For all these reasons, TSI can convince the court that they must oppose the motion in spite of out-of-court agreement not to oppose. In other words, if they don't oppose, they'll be doing much more harm on all fronts, to themselves, to their customers, to the court.

In fact, that last bit about transferring legal duty to their customers can be used by the court to force TSI to oppose the motion, and fulfill their duty to abide by the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. Otherwise the court is basically saying it's OK to abandon one's duty and break the law.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to JoinDoes
said by JoinDoes :

I did write to CIPPIC and offer them the chance to be my authorized representative in court so they could have guaranteed standing.

They turned me down.

Which was nice.

The CIPPIC as a non-profit organization can not deviate from it's mandate. The CIPPIC doesn't offer individual representation as part of it's mandate. What is in their mandate is pro-bono advice to individuals, but from the looks of the size of this case, maybe virtually impossible to do. What is also in their mandate is to represent the public interest with respect to digital policy, which is currently what they are doing here.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
Which is currently what they're trying to do here. But there's no guarantee they'll be heard or even considered. Hence the need for at least one defendant to ask CIPPIC to join them at least as expert witness.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

jkoblovsky

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

said by JonyBelGeul See Profile

I think TSI can oppose anyway. I have a few ideas how this can be done.

The privacy agreement. This agreement is an extension of privacy laws, therefore is bigger than an out-of-court agreement, especially one that basically breaks the privacy agreement therefore privacy laws. So, an argument can be made that TSI was in error to agree not to oppose in the first place, as it puts them in a bad position with their own customers, and with privacy laws (probably much worse position to be in).

You are on the right track, however there is going to be a financial penalty if they break this agreement. There may be a financial penalty if they don't and if consumers decide to follow up on their rights on this. Either way they made a deal with the devil and are screwed as a result. The agreement while I firmly believe was well intentioned, really put TSI in a very interesting position. Question becomes, which is a greater risk to the business. That's something that only Marc can decide because fundamentally the answer to that question may very well determine whether his business survives through this.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
An argument can be made that an agreement - a contract - is nul and void if it breaks the law, therefore frees all parties from the obligations therein. I think I made a pretty good list of arguments that this is the case here.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to jkoblovsky
In fact, TSI could say they agreed not to oppose out-of-court, knowing that this agreement broke privacy laws therefore was nul and void a priori, but only for the purpose of filling a legal hole - notice-and-notice - which had not yet been implemented, but most likely will be. In other words, TSI played a trick on Voltage.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.