said by resa1983:
I'm just going to respond to a few different things.. Excuse the mess.
The only problem is, the last 2 copytroll cases (1 which was Voltage in Fall 2011, 1 which was NGN Fall 2012), the courts accepted the plaintiff's request as to the format of the information, and ordered it as such. So there is some history here already.
They will be requesting remuneration for their costs. Nothing more, nothing less. Whatever that amount may be.
This has been tested extensively, with a bunch of defamation suits.
»espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/7533···famation resulted in »webcache.googleusercontent.com/s···irefox-a
Geist himself even wrote about this:
So, lets go through the test with this case, shall we?
1. Reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes.
2. Prima facie case of wrongdoing? Yes, until the evidence is tried anyways (which isn't required for a court order)
3. Plaintiff tried to identify the poster & unable to? Yes.
4. Public Interest favouring disclosure outweighs freedom of express & privacy... Yes.
The only thing people HAVE been able to do, is argue to stay anonymous with representation, conduct a full trial, while the judge knows who you are.
I'm sorry to say that you have no right to privacy whatsoever if libeling someone, or breaking the law (ie copyright infringement).
This point with respect to privacy is not helpful in describing where the responsibility lies in this particular case. Consumers are owed crystal clear answers moving forward with respect to their rights.
Businesses do not have to directly challenge the issues with respect to privacy. What they do have to do under PIPEDA is to ensure that the merits of the requests and evidence presented are sound prior to release, which in this case falls on TSI to do DIRECTLY.
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/