dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2038
share rss forum feed

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to JMJimmy

Re: Could John Doe sue TSI if they give out his personal info ?

said by JMJimmy:

Again, the part you cut out: it's not about complying or not, it's about their actions before the order is issued.

Inaction is a form of negligence.

PIPEDA does not prescribe any action to hide or otherwise 'protect' confidential information from law enforcement.

Imagine how messy law enforcement would become if people became liable for information police stumbles upon while executing search warrants.

Since the people with the most to hide would effectively declare themselves out in the open with such frivolous action, I have a hard time imagining how drawing attention to their own illegal activities could work in the privacy plaintiffs' favor.

The worst part in this for people who aren't involved in the case is TSI likely has to eat the cost of complying with court orders and triple-checking the lists, which means rates may have to go up to cover those costs if the copyright mafiaa decides to go full-throttle.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to prairiesky

said by prairiesky:

said by JMJimmy:

Again, the part you cut out: it's not about complying or not, it's about their actions before the order is issued.

Inaction is a form of negligence.

But the motion isn't against tek, it's a motion to the court for an order to release the information. They really don't have solid grounds to contest the motion. They're just the middle man. They're a neutral party to the suits at hand

That's an open question, does tek have a responsability under PIPEDA to act to protect our privacy? Telus and Shaw think so, Bhell and Cogeco do not... but it's never been tested in court.


storminnn

@telus.net
reply to JohnDoe206

The real question is: "is the information that is being presented by Voltage to the Judge enough to get a disclosure of names from Teksavvy".

That is what Teksavvy needs to do for due diligence. If they do not practice due diligence then a lawsuit is plausible.
Otherwise random companies could get lots of names for a phone spam and spam mail list based on random information presented that easily gets past a Judge when a company does not dispute it. "these IPs copied images off of my picture selling website, so I need their details for suing, ya thats it, suing".

The main dispute with this whole case is why is Voltages business model based on sending 'pay now letters' instead of having the lawsuit filed already(please excuse if there is already 2000 john doe cases filed already). But their past history is about 'pay half price now' instead of 'sue now and let a Judge decide the case at trial' with a max 5 grand judgment.

If Voltage statements to the Judge for release of names is highly questionable(ex: heres 5 seconds of a upload from IP *.*.*.* ,at calender date), well that is challengeable. Shoot, if I go in my router logs, I can pull out IP's and their port numbers that randomly hit my router. Usually more when I get a fresh IP address. And it wouldn't take much to communicate with those hits for ahhhhh research.

There was case in British Columbia a few years back. The Police went to BC Hydro and demanded the names of all users in North Vancouver(maybe west north van), who used above a certain amount of electricity per month. It was 1126 users according to BC Hydro. It was instantly challenged by Hydro, due to no evidence at all that the users were grow-ops. Hydro won. Then the BC government made a law that violates the Charter in order to ignore judicial oversight and to ignore due process and its also hopefully been finally squashed too.

You can challenge all warrants on the spot of serving. In order to determine legitimacy. Wrong address. Wrong name. Wrong dates. It does tick off the server of it. All mute if your front door is now on the floor and your dog is shot.

Another example. During the Olympics in Vancouver, the Police walked into one of the Rights organizations temporary offices and then on into the secure back areas like they owned the place. They were told to get out unless they had a warrant or hard evidence of wrong doing that would allow them to gain access to the back end on demand.

For further research on how what looks like information of wrong doing is false, check out this guy who keeps getting harassed by idiots who think he has their lost/stolen cell phone.
»www.lvrj.com/news/if-you-lose-yo···171.html
Not mentioned in the article is his address is listed as the cell tower address.
Some phones that say they have GPS are actually using tower triangulation under many instances.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

That's an open question, does tek have a responsability under PIPEDA to act to protect our privacy?

Against random people pretending to be copyright holders making loosely substantiated claims of infringement without warrant or court order? Probably, since identity thieves could easily start abusing this otherwise: fish for IPs, file bogus claims with the ISPs, get customer data.

Against people/companies that have enough evidence to convince a court to issue a court order for disclosure which should also imply that they have proven their actual intention to file actual lawsuits, not merely extort as has been the case too many times already in the USA? No.

Considering the cost of handling copyright notices and putting together the information with no compensation, it is understandable that ISPs who have little to no stake in content outfits are not interested in wasting their money and resources on helping copyright holders until a court order becomes imminent.

Bell has a vested interest in cooperating with copyright owners since it enables them to test the whole process without hurting their own reputation too much so they know what to expect if they ever need/choose to go after people pirating Bell's own content, possibly Bell's own internet subscribers.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Well said InvalidError.

I think Bhell is what scares me the most in this whole situation. I can deal with the likes of Voltage but if Bhell begins acting in this manor they have the ability to DPI, even decrypt encrypted sessions as Nokia was caught doing, and I don't think they'd hesitate to log every bit of information they can.

Content and delivery should never have been allowed to mix.


Oatz

join:2011-11-14
Scarborough, ON

1 edit
reply to JohnDoe206

Really, it's the Judge's responsibility to grant the court order only after having exercised due diligence.

It is not a defendent company's role nor expertise (sometimes it is, but not always) to determine whether the court order is appropriate (otherwise they may as well self police - and get rid of the court).

Of course, if the data request is clearly flawed and it is reasonably obvious to the defendent, then it would be negligent of them not to note as such to the Judge.

It really is up to the Judge to ask the basic questions, why are you requesting this, how did you get this information, and is it sound. Judge's aren't experts in every field (understandably so), and as such, some of that responsibility inevitably must fall on the defendent and/or, in this case, CIPPIC to point out).

If the Judge willfully ignores this expertise without reason,


JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Judges can only entertain what is presented in the case and actual law. Judges can't make arguments for either party.

Party 1: Motion
Party 2: No objection
Judge: Motion doesn't expressly contravene law, motion accepted

That said, the point is now moot. Teksavvy stepped up today and made objections on several grounds and stipulated requirements for protecting customer data even if the motion is granted.

Very proud of TSI after today's hearing.


prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2

said by JMJimmy:

Judges can only entertain what is presented in the case and actual law. Judges can't make arguments for either party.

Party 1: Motion
Party 2: No objection
Judge: Motion doesn't expressly contravene law, motion accepted

That said, the point is now moot. Teksavvy stepped up today and made objections on several grounds and stipulated requirements for protecting customer data even if the motion is granted.

Very proud of TSI after today's hearing.

That's not quite and much too simplistic. While the judge can't make arguments, he can certainly ask for more information, which is what we saw today. Remember that the motion is to the court, not against Tek, so just because a motion is unopposed doesn't make it automatically go through, it still needs to pass certain tests.

Tek did excatly what they said they would do, they didn't oppose the motion, but raised their concerns and gave their support to Cippic. They didn't bend over and give the info, but they're also not fighting the case. It's a very fine line.

tired

join:2010-12-12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TELUS
reply to JMJimmy

said by JMJimmy:

Very proud of TSI after today's hearing.

I agree. I think despite the initial statement not to challenge the merit of Voltage's allegations that they've come out of it much better. Hopefully CIPPIC is granted intervenor status and this thing gets sorted out before TSI customers get shakedown letters.

I do hope though that if there is a next time that they (or any ISP) don't try this tactic again, but would be willing to challenge immediately. I agree 100% with Svet Ivanov's quote of the judge: unopposed motions are "risky".

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

said by JMJimmy:

Content and delivery should never have been allowed to mix.

Next election, vote the Cons out, and get the Competition Bureau to revisit the matter.

See »Re: CRTC Chariman Freaks Out Over Netflix. Recommends Monopolies