dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
14
zinc
Premium Member
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON

zinc to JonyBelGeul

Premium Member

to JonyBelGeul

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

To be fair to TSI, all their legal agreements with us customers says that if there's a court order, then they will comply. They do not say that they will take extreme measures to protect our privacy. And to date, there hasn't been a court order so nobody has any of our information.

It's really up to the court, I haven't seen any of the details, but if Voltage's evidence is as shabby as it has been described, then the court shouldn't be ordering TSI to disclose customer information. It's not up to TSI to decide that Voltage's evidence is crap.
JonyBelGeul
Premium Member
join:2008-07-31

JonyBelGeul

Premium Member

said by zinc:

To be fair to TSI, all their legal agreements with us customers says that if there's a court order, then they will comply. They do not say that they will take extreme measures to protect our privacy. And to date, there hasn't been a court order so nobody has any of our information.

It's really up to the court, I haven't seen any of the details, but if Voltage's evidence is as shabby as it has been described, then the court shouldn't be ordering TSI to disclose customer information. It's not up to TSI to decide that Voltage's evidence is crap.

It's not up to the court to cross-examine Voltage's motion to disclose. It's not the court's duty to do this. It's the defendant's duty to cross-examine the motion. In fact, without opposition, the court has no choice but to grant the motion as is.

Upholding one's part of a privacy agreement by cross-examining a third party's motion to disclose is not extreme measures. It's an integral part of one's duty according to the conditions set forth by the agreement.

Furthermore, a motion to disclose is not a court order.

To be fair to TSI, of course.

apvm
join:2003-02-14
London, ON
Linksys WRT1900AC
SmartRG SR505N
Huawei HG612

apvm

Member

said by JonyBelGeul:

said by zinc:

To be fair to TSI, all their legal agreements with us customers says that if there's a court order, then they will comply. They do not say that they will take extreme measures to protect our privacy. And to date, there hasn't been a court order so nobody has any of our information.

It's really up to the court, I haven't seen any of the details, but if Voltage's evidence is as shabby as it has been described, then the court shouldn't be ordering TSI to disclose customer information. It's not up to TSI to decide that Voltage's evidence is crap.

It's not up to the court to cross-examine Voltage's motion to disclose. It's not the court's duty to do this. It's the defendant's duty to cross-examine the motion. In fact, without opposition, the court has no choice but to grant the motion as is.

Upholding one's part of a privacy agreement by cross-examining a third party's motion to disclose is not extreme measures. It's an integral part of one's duty according to the conditions set forth by the agreement.

Furthermore, a motion to disclose is not a court order.

To be fair to TSI, of course.

+1
m3chen
join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON

m3chen to zinc

Member

to zinc
@zinc:

Here's a thread I started a few weeks ago that explains what exactly TSI's legal obligations are with respect to our privacy:

»Re: Teksavvy and PIPEDA

Here's a snippet of my biggest problem with what is going on:

PIPEDA requires private-sector organizations to collect, use or disclose your personal information by fair and lawful means, with your consent, and only for purposes that are stated and reasonable.

They’re also obliged to protect your personal information through appropriate security measures, and to destroy it when it’s no longer needed for the original purposes.


Even with their TOS; they are obliged to protect your private information in PIPEDA and destroy their IP logs when they are no longer needed for their original and intended purpose (unless hidden somewhere in their TOS is that the intended purpose of IP logs is to allow third parties like Voltage to sue you). This is the point where you would want to consult a lawyer on whether or not TSI will be forced to live up to their privacy obligations. JMJimmy (one of the people named in the lawsuit) believe case law is against user on this one, but his case specifically points to a criminal case involving child pornography and law enforcement.
zinc
Premium Member
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON

zinc to apvm

Premium Member

to apvm
I guess I'm a bit lacking in understanding of everything.

So in this case, since TSI has stated they won't oppose it, perhaps we as customers should be taking TSI to court to enforce our privacy agreement with them and prevent the disclosure?
m3chen
join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON

m3chen

Member

@Zinc:

In this case, TSI is wading into dangerous territory with their decision to not oppose. The real can of warms is when TSI has to obligation to PIPEDA and does something that violates it (i.e giving information away without consent). This gets even more slippery since the data being requested is definitely intended not for the purpose of legal remedy by third parties and is not mandated by law to be retained for that purpose. If you were one of the 2000, I would have consulted a lawyer and gone the route of seeing if you were being wronged by TSI's motion to not oppose / filing a complaint against them for not doing their due diligence with respect to PIPEDA.