MFidoMontreal join:2012-10-19 |
to Dunlop
Re: A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...a telenovela with Canadian flavor |
|
|
to JohnDoe187
Adjournment granted. It seems to me that TekSavvy fought pretty hard for the privacy of their customers. |
|
|
MFidoMontreal join:2012-10-19 |
MFido
Member
2013-Jan-14 12:44 pm
after following all the tweets ... agree with you 100% |
|
|
Yup. TSI might not be technically "opposing" the motion but they're doing everything they can to enable CIPPIC and make Voltage's life miserable and expensive. Adjournment is definitely good news, as is the judge's statement that unopposed motions are dangerous. Sounds like CIPPIC will get a fair crack at this. |
|
|
to JohnDoe187
i agree. i didnt feel let down by teksavvy at all. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to JohnDoe187
Unless I'm reading this wrong, TekSavvy did raise in court the issues with the validity of Voltage's evidence. At this point you could say pretty conclusively that TekSavvy is opposing the motion, despite their earlier statement that they would not.
I'm note sure why they've changed their minds. Perhaps due to the public pressure they've been getting over this, perhaps they looked deeper into it and realized how flimsy Voltage's request is, perhaps they're worried that the motion being granted would be a slippery slope situation or invite other trolls to do the same? |
|
|
to JohnDoe187
It would be a slippery slope for them to all of a sudden oppose it. It would open them up to breach of contract. As I mentioned way back when, they can still express their concerns and support an adjournment without opposing the motion.
It's sort of what I expected to happen which was for them to run interference without getting involved and opening them up to lawsuits from voltage. |
|
|
to Guspaz
I'm not sure about this Gus, but I think perhaps there is a technical definition of "opposing" a motion (ie you have to declare your opposition to the court). It seems that TSI hasn't done this since the judge did mention that the motion is unopposed. But yes, they are definitely putting up walls designed to slow Voltage down and prevent or at least delay the release of customer information. |
|
MFidoMontreal join:2012-10-19 |
to JohnDoe187
Should the title of this discussion be changed? Suggestion: "A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers" |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
said by MFido:Should the title of this discussion be changed?
Suggestion: "A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers"
"A long passionate story of how Teksavvy is doing their best to protect it's customers, including Notice-and-Notice where it isn't actually in the full legislation yet, the taking on of the nasty Troll of Hollywood, and how Marc looks hot in tights (or so I've been told)" |
|
|
to The Mongoose
said by The Mongoose:I'm not sure about this Gus, but I think perhaps there is a technical definition of "opposing" a motion (ie you have to declare your opposition to the court). It seems that TSI hasn't done this since the judge did mention that the motion is unopposed. But yes, they are definitely putting up walls designed to slow Voltage down and prevent or at least delay the release of customer information. Does "unopposed" mean "silently agreed by default"? I see many people posting celebratory messages... but the same thing may happen in March 2013, the information may still be released at that time because it was not opposed or dismissed. It is simply postponed. |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
to JohnDoe187
In the context of the relatively new Copyright Act the judge said it is important to get this right because the Act is new. Having arguments heard from both sides allows the judge to come to better informed decision. One side missing, could be some important details overlooked. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
said by AkFubar:In the context of the relatively new Copyright Act the judge said it is important to get this right because the Act is new. Having arguments heard from both sides allows the judge to come to better informed decision. One side missing, could be some important details overlooked.
A correct interpretation. |
|
Gami00 join:2010-03-11 Mississauga, ON |
to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Unless I'm reading this wrong, TekSavvy did raise in court the issues with the validity of Voltage's evidence. At this point you could say pretty conclusively that TekSavvy is opposing the motion, despite their earlier statement that they would not.
I'm pretty sure TSI did this to have it on "record" on how in-accurate the data that voltage got, and crossing referencing even to their simple IP logs actually is. It makes really good valid point that using IPs to solely identify someone is woefully inept. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to MFido
said by MFido:a telenovela with Canadian flavor
But where were the bare-breasted women? Cue JF |
|