dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11620
share rss forum feed


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to cmotors

Re: A summary of How Teksavvy has failed it's customers...

...


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

Is it "dumb" or a dumb business decision?

As stated TSI prides on being different and customer friendly. If this had any merit no one would care to chime in and CPPIC would stay out of it. To me it is "dumb" on a company's party to not question the validity of the claim before it hands out personal information.

It's not dumb, it's calculating and deliberate. TSI chose not to fight for proof under the fear of of the trolls targeting them. They figure the fallout would be a few thousand customers and they would proclaim their innocence and concern by CLAIMING they are doing what they have to do by law.

After the 16th, if the customers land under the bus, it's up to us, the ones who use to tout how "great" TSI, to change that tune and make sure that TSI pays the price.

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.
--
Matt



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

said by mattvmotas:

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.

lol

swampboy

join:2012-01-24
Hamilton, ON
reply to Who7

Teksavvy is living in a dream world if they think Voltage will go away after they get the first set of subscribers names. They will be back at the trough on a regular basis until Teksavvy has no subscribers left.The first ISP that offers no logging or the absolute minimum is where I'll be heading. Teksavvy has already indicated log errors and I don't want to be an innocent victim. I also like to use wifi at my house and I don't want to give that up.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to mattvmotas

Oh wow... Breaking the law would mean the court has ordered a disclosure and TSI has not filed an appeal and continue to not hand over the info. Last I checked none of those has happened.

Is opposing the motion base on validity breaking the law or comprise their neutral status? Seems the experts don't think so, so unless you have a law degree or a lawyer you are just making false claims. I for one is just regurgitating what the SMEs are saying...


cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to Tx

I'm not missing the point, contrary to what you seem to believe. I just disagree with you lot who are putting down teksavvy, regardless of title, creed, social stature, expert knowledge of everything, note from mommy, etc... So you've got a bunch of people that agree with you. I'm sure there is a bunch of people that agree with me too. Big whoop, like that really changes things at the end of the day. 1 million people wrong doesn't make them right, but I guess it's more about feeling superior in numbers than actual logic. I disagree with blaming teksavvy, and that's the only point I'm going to be concerned with. You can spin things however you like, I'm still going to disagree with you. So for you, I'm just going to say that we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

... = waste of perfectly good pixels!


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to mattvmotas

said by mattvmotas:

The very simple answer is that if TSI is served with court papers demanding your information, then they are legally obligated to provide it. Why should they risk their business breaking the law for you? I don't see anywhere that TSI has handed over information without the required court orders.

Because the law requires there is bona fide case before doing so.

Because TSI chose not to go down that route.

Because TSI simply chose to sacrifice customers rather then standing up for privacy.

Because TSI made a cold calculating decision that they could afford to lose those customers rather then spending money on legal costs.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

Oh wow... Breaking the law would mean the court has ordered a disclosure and TSI has not filed an appeal and continue to not hand over the info. Last I checked none of those has happened.

Is opposing the motion base on validity breaking the law or comprise their neutral status? Seems the experts don't think so, so unless you have a law degree or a lawyer you are just making false claims. I for one is just regurgitating what the SMEs are saying...

Just ignore Matt. People like that don't care who is thrown under the bus until it's them. THEN the issue becomes real. People are so hung up on "oh muh gawd, you're downloading a movie, how dare you" while missing the very point to this whole process.

42 people mistakenly notified. That absolutely backfired on TSI no matter how innocent the mistake. THIS was why they asked for more time to notify everyone.

Also it seems Voltage has been arguing that Teksavvy was notified of this long before December 11th and argue that TSI waited too long to notify their customers hoping it'd go away.

Don't worry, if Matt was one of the next round of IP's to be mistakenly identified and now requires legal representation which in his case would be unfair i bet we wouldn't hear about it out of pure embarrassment.

Such a true saying "It's not my problem until it's my problem"

FatBastid

join:2012-12-27
Toronto, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

Yes, the link posted earlier was to the mobile version, which chokes when you try to load it on a regular PC. As others posted, this link works regardless: »business.financialpost.com/2013/···ntation/

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and calm the F down before posting inflammatory comments. Having said that...

Those affected, and those not affected who still want to voice an opinion, should have done their reading and, at the very least, read the materials that CIPPIC filed in its motion for intervener status. There they set out the reasons they should be allowed to intervene, and they are of some importance.

Basically CIPPIC points out to the court that this case may set precedent that will have wide ramifications and WILL affect the general public, including those of expectations of privacy, use of personal information, interpretation of our new copyright laws, etc, etc, and that NEITHER party to this motion has any interest in defending or addressing the issues of public interest. The ISP's only interest is that of a private business, and to remain neutral, and those of Voltage are also of a private business. Someone has to weigh in on the bigger issues that are coming to play.

So to the people who continue to think this is just a matter of whether somebody downloaded and watched a crappy B movie, please, please, either do more reading or refrain from commenting.

To the people possibly directly affected, try to avoid sounding like a whiner, otherwise nobody will be sympathetic to your cause. You have to understand Teksavvy's position. They got legal advice, and followed it. They don't have to defend you. They gave you ample opportunity to get your own legal advice. It is a rotten situation, their customers are indeed getting screwed by copyright trolls, who might in the process obtain legal precedent that will trample on a bunch of the rights of Canadians in general, but TSI DOESN'T HAVE TO CARE. You can't force anyone to care in this world, much less a corporation. Their duty is to their shareholders, not to you, and if the bean counters said it makes more sense to stay neutral and watch you lose your kid's college fund over this, well, it sucks but it is within their right. All you can do is make your own business decision, based on what YOUR principles are. If you decide to leave, tell them why. TSI can get together with their bean counters later and see if it was worth it. As CIPPIC pointed out, there are much, much bigger issues at stake here, and how this case is handled might affect everyone in Canada. Teksavvy has already chosen what role it wants to play. How the public opinion will judge it will depend on how things work out.



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

said by cmotors:

I'm not missing the point, contrary to what you seem to believe. I just disagree with you lot who are putting down teksavvy, regardless of title, creed, social stature, expert knowledge of everything, note from mommy, etc... So you've got a bunch of people that agree with you. I'm sure there is a bunch of people that agree with me too. Big whoop, like that really changes things at the end of the day. 1 million people wrong doesn't make them right, but I guess it's more about feeling superior in numbers than actual logic. I disagree with blaming teksavvy, and that's the only point I'm going to be concerned with. You can spin things however you like, I'm still going to disagree with you. So for you, I'm just going to say that we'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

... = waste of perfectly good pixels!

Show me a copyright expert or an expert in law (lawyer) who agrees with your side that isn't a DSLR user. Your ideals are yours. A perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world and it's not about asking TSI to stand up for pirates, it's about protecting people such as the 42 who were mistakenly notified. Those 42 were truly innocent but what if it wasn't caught?

Is that the cost of doing business? give me a break. For that very reason that it's not a foolproof way of figure out who, it's a very scary territory to be walking on when you say it's ok what TSI is doing.

It's not ok for ANY isp to do it. Rogers etc will simply because they've proven not to give two shits about their customers and throwing them under the bus to avoid extra legal costs is easier.

Taking the easier route and toss a few sheep in voltages path is not a solution. It's a bandaid and Voltage will be going after far more after this. Let's just hope it's not you next that is mistakenly identified as an infringing IP.

Whoops

Who7

join:2012-12-18

The article in the National Post is making TSI look terrible. They basically saying that TSI is rolling over.

And it's going to get worse if the trolls win.

There you go Marc, you thought that rolling over our privacy was cheaper then fighting. Reap what you sowed.



apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to avp77

said by avp77:

This link isn't going anywhere for me.

edit: fixed link: »business.financialpost.com/2013/···entation

Thanks for fixing the link and it was a good read.

Amazed that nobody including Teksavvy question if the method used to acquire those IP addresses is legitimate and accurate or not.

Too bad, fan boys already high profiled themselves riding in and call for guillotine the 2000+ fellow Teksavvy's customers.

cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to JohnDoe187

said by JohnDoe187:

My apologies see below post by avp77

I assumed you were referring to a different article than what was already posted in this thread. Yes, I had already read it from very first posting, and the link had worked for me then. The only thing that I can see that might be considered usable in your argument is that "While Mr. Knopf did not comment specifically on Voltage’s material, he said if it is inadequate, TekSavvy taking a stand against it would be an easy win for the company with its customers and would not sacrifice its status as a neutral party." Well, that's opinion, and all matters of law are always a matter of opinion or interpretation, each side thinking they have the "right" one. In practice, anything can happen and a decision can go either way.

Even if my ip were listed as one affected, I would still have the same opinion. I wouldn't be happy for sure, but Teksavvy is a company. They are not my mommy, they are not related to me in any way, other than I pay them for internet. The problem here is Voltage, and hopefully the courts will see that.

Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to apvm

said by apvm:

said by avp77:

This link isn't going anywhere for me.

edit: fixed link: »business.financialpost.com/2013/···entation

Thanks for fixing the link and it was a good read.

Amazed that nobody including Teksavvy question if the method used to acquire those IP addresses is legitimate and accurate or not.

Too bad, fan boys already high profiled themselves riding in and call for guillotine the 2000+ fellow Teksavvy's customers.

And TSI has/has the choice to argue if it's a bona fide case. Like the law allows.

But here we are......

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

1 edit
reply to Tx

Watching this thread go on is almost comical, but in truth very sad. As I and a whole lot of other people have said before; this is about privacy and not piracy. TSI has obligations to safegaurd your private information under PIPEDA and cannot give it away unless a court orders them to do so. That did not occur in the past when TSI made their bad deal and still has not occurred at this point in time.

BTW I'm not a lawyer but I am a I.T+S professional and it is in my professional opinion that a dynamic IP associated with an account does not represent a single person / the account holder. There are so many variables and unknowns that unless the evidence was very specific (i.e physical evidence), it would not prove to the court that more than 51% likely hood that the IP address linked to the account holder downloaded the copyrighted material.


Who7

join:2012-12-18

said by m3chen:



BTW I'm not a lawyer but I am a I.T+S professional and it is in my professional opinion that a dynamic IP associate with an account does not represent a single person / the account holder. There are so many variables and unknowns that unless the evidence was very specific (i.e physical evidence), it would not prove to the court that more than 51% likely hood that the IP address linked to the account holder downloaded the copyrighted material.

And TSI made this argument in front of the judge as part of the bona fide proof one needs before rolling over?

Nope.

In fact, they made none. They simply asked for more time to give customers time to inform them. What they have to do according to the law.

The TSI apologist come on line and claim that is proof people can use after the privacy rollover. In fact, it could be made by TSI itself. Even if ten people out of a thousand are innocent, they still have the obligation to protect those ten.

Bugblndr

join:2010-03-02
Burlington, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable

said by Who7:

And TSI made this argument in front of the judge as part of the bona fide proof one needs before rolling over?

Nope.

In fact, they made none. They simply asked for more time to give customers time to inform them. What they have to do according to the law.

The TSI apologist come on line and claim that is proof people can use after the privacy rollover. In fact, it could be made by TSI itself. Even if ten people out of a thousand are innocent, they still have the obligation to protect those ten.

TSI gave those thousand people the opportunity to protect their own privacy, something they did not have to do. Should they do more? I'm not really sure, I know I protect my own privacy online as I see fit.


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
reply to Who7

said by Who7:

said by m3chen:



BTW I'm not a lawyer but I am a I.T+S professional and it is in my professional opinion that a dynamic IP associate with an account does not represent a single person / the account holder. There are so many variables and unknowns that unless the evidence was very specific (i.e physical evidence), it would not prove to the court that more than 51% likely hood that the IP address linked to the account holder downloaded the copyrighted material.

And TSI made this argument in front of the judge as part of the bona fide proof one needs before rolling over?

Nope.

In fact, they made none. They simply asked for more time to give customers time to inform them. What they have to do according to the law.

The TSI apologist come on line and claim that is proof people can use after the privacy rollover. In fact, it could be made by TSI itself. Even if ten people out of a thousand are innocent, they still have the obligation to protect those ten.

Did TSI ask Voltage if the IP addresses were draw from a lottery box?

cmotors

join:2011-01-28
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

Show me a copyright expert or an expert in law (lawyer) who agrees with your side that isn't a DSLR user. Your ideals are yours. A perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world and it's not about asking TSI to stand up for pirates, it's about protecting people such as the 42 who were mistakenly notified. Those 42 were truly innocent but what if it wasn't caught?

I have not brought piracy into my argument, so I have no illusions about that. The issue is clearly bigger than that. I don't feel compelled to find a copyright expert to agree or disagree with me in order to substantiate a point in an internet forum. If there is an "expert" who feels we should all trash teksavvy, then I guess an important event has occurred for some of you. If you feel that you're right, great! I personally don't think teksavvy is the bad guy here. As for the law issues, yes, very important. Hopefully the courts will address the real issue at hand (for ALL of our sakes), not the internet forum one where you guys are trashing teksavvy. Obviously they won't, since teksavvy is not on trial, just in the court of internet forum opinion..

I have no illusions about the people on the ip list. It sucks, and I truly hope the courts come through for them, and everyone that isn't on the list either. If I was on the list, it wouldn't change my opinion. I would be pretty po'd for sure. But at voltage... Upon hearing that Teksavvy would not be fighting, i would be disappointed as well. However, Teksavvy is not my Mommy, nor do I expect them to be.

said by Tx:

Is that the cost of doing business? give me a break. For that very reason that it's not a foolproof way of figure out who, it's a very scary territory to be walking on when you say it's ok what TSI is doing.

Clearly there are issues with ip tracking and spoofing. I'm quite familiar with the landscape. This has to be recognized by the courts (fingers crossed). Not going to blame teksavvy for what voltage is doing.

said by Tx:

It's not ok for ANY isp to do it. Rogers etc will simply because they've proven not to give two shits about their customers and throwing them under the bus to avoid extra legal costs is easier.

I agree about Rogers, for sure. For Teksavvy, I don't think it is the same. The result may be similar, but the paths and choices taken are different. Not saying that any body shouldn't be disappointed, I just don't think Teksavvy should be the ones on trial here. My opinion.

said by Tx:

Taking the easier route and toss a few sheep in voltages path is not a solution. It's a bandaid and Voltage will be going after far more after this. Let's just hope it's not you next that is mistakenly identified as an infringing IP.

Agreed, except for the characterization of the matter as being simply throwing sheep.

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to Bugblndr

When it comes down to it some just see the small picture and not the entire picture. It's a sad limitation of some minds... Just like how it takes a special type of CEO to get a company to the next 10 or 100 million dollars...


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Bugblndr

Clearly you need to understand your rights as a Canadian citizen and consumer a little better. While you are correct in assuming that it is ultimately up to you to protect yourself when a legitimate lawsuit is launched against you; Tek Savvy actually has an obligation to protect your private information under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Simply passing the buck onto you as a customer after they have given all of your private information they have away to a third party without verifying the evidence against you / their affect customer is simply them not doing their due diligence.

While I'm sure their legal team gave them advice on this, I imagine that TSI has their own IT+S professional staff who could have provided them with similar information as what I / others have been saying on this board. Giving away data without making damn sure that those accused actually did the deed is going to be something that will come back to haunt TSI and their existing customer base.


Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to Bugblndr

said by Bugblndr:

TSI gave those thousand people the opportunity to protect their own privacy, something they did not have to do. Should they do more? I'm not really sure, I know I protect my own privacy online as I see fit.

Sorry. TSI must inform their customers.

Doing what they are obligated to do does not make them righteous.

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
reply to m3chen

said by m3chen:

BTW I'm not a lawyer

... so why are you thinking you know better than their lawyer what they should do?


AwShucks

@rogers.com

Their lawyer advises them on what they think is best for THEM. Not their customers. Not the general public. And besides, lawyers have been known to be wrong. There's also a lawyer on the losing side of most cases.



Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to JohnDoe187

I don't know why everyone is in a tizzy over this...

Teksavvy is trying to protect their status as a "dumb pipe", the moment TSI begins opposing the court request for information they risk becoming liable for commercial infringement. If your legal counsel gives you a recommendation on how to proceed then its usually a good idea to follow it.

Fighting the legal battle to protect the privacy of these users opens up too much risk and very little gain.

TSI did the right thing by being completely transparent and open in communicating to their user base. TSI did not need to do this and simply had to send a notice to the 2300 subscribers. The fact that Marc is active on this forum and relatively open about these proceedings is amazing, good luck getting this kind of interaction from Bell!

We have no idea what Voltage will do with the information they receive IF the court order for account information is upheld.

Those that got a notice SHOULD have lawyered up to have representation in the upcoming court hearing. It would have been great to see 2300 lawyers lined up ready to defend their privacy, that's not likely to happen though!

I think everyone needs to put the pitchforks down and think about this logcally.



apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1

said by Atticka:

TSI did the right thing by being completely transparent and open in communicating to their user base. TSI did not need to do this and simply had to send a notice to the 2300 subscribers. The fact that Marc is active on this forum and relatively open about these proceedings is amazing, good luck getting this kind of interaction from Bell!

What is the difference? Aren't they just the same in the end?


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

The difference is we can actually have a conversation about what is going versus having zero details.

The difference is having a company that cares enough and is open enough to have a dialogue with us regarding these proceedings.

Bell would not do this and would most likely simply comply with the request with little thought to the accused users.



shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to mattvmotas

said by mattvmotas:

The very simple answer is...

Let me stop you right there. Perhaps "simple answers" are best not used for complex problems?

What's next - Are you going to have a feeling in your stomach, which could either be some form of an idea or merely indigestion.

It is actually really "simple" Matt.... Our legal system should not be exploited for the financial gain of copyright trolls.

m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
reply to MFido

@MontrealFido:

Apparently smart ass remarks are just as good as professional opinions. You should provide some input as to how a lawyer would know how computers, networks and bittorent operate / function...