|reply to TypeS |
Re: Bravo Distributel!
Let's be very clear of the position you are advocating. That privacy is the sole responsibility of the Canadian whose privacy is being violated.
I think that is a realistic view if we're talking about all of the spyware that permeates the internet. That's why you need add-blockers, and cookie managers, and browser security plug-ins, etc. Even this situation is being challenged quite strongly by EU governments.
In addition, it appears, your view is that all law abiding Canadians must also protect themselves from the information collected by their ISP?
Hmmmm. An ISP has a very special relationship with the subscriber in that they have direct access to a vast array of personal data. There must be high standards applied so that any information is not disclosed to third parties without close inspection; particularly in the case where the data is proprietary to the ISP.
If you disagree then you've become an advocate for the ISP. How does this position serve you as a Canadian consumer?
You're twisting my words, as you have in other threads.
And making rather clueless assumptions too.
I have not said it is the sole responsibility of a Canadian consumer to protect their privacy but they share the same responsibility. A lot of anger towards TekSavvy is because people expected TekSavvy to launch legal action on a cause that is not theirs directly. They are NOT a law firm. They are NOT a civil rights group. They are NOT a consumer group. They are NOT a think tank
What I am saying is that is neither right or wrong to do what TekSavvy is doing or what Distributel is doing. Distribuel 180 degree stance now is admirable (but I myself question the motivation).
We already expect all TPIA to fight for against things like UBB, throttling, fair data usage, pricing, competition in the broadband access market. Now we want to become legal experts and fight in the courts too? That wasn't what they sold you, and I challenge you prove me wrong with a ToS from ANY ISP.
You are right about one thing, there is a special relationship between the ISP and the customer because of the sensitive data they are preview too. And that was is PIPEDA is there for. Their responsibility is to safeguard their database so that unauthorized eyes dont ever see that data. This includes safeguarding from external attacks (something many companies have failed if you've kept up with companies like Sony being breached). And they did fulfll their end of the bargain by not handing any information to Voltage. They told them to go to the courts where a Judge can decide if Voltage's motion has any merit (for the record, I believe the don't).
You forget there is legislation there for a reason, to settle disputes and crimes.
Someone commits a crime against you (assault, robbery, B&E, etc). Do you become a vigilante and take the law into your own hands? Do you conduct your own investigation to identify a masked assailant? No, you report it the police.
TekSavvy has sent Voltage to the courts where matters like these belong. And there are groups like the CPPIC that are made of citizens who do care about the privacy of all Canadians and are willing use their own time and resources to fight against Voltage. Instead of just sitting in a chair slandering an company on a forum.
|reply to QuantumPimp |
@QuantumPimp: I think you may be slightly "off" with where my position rests. While there is a certain amount of effort that needs to be made by each individual through various means (including those that you mentioned), it is not solely the responsibility of that person to ensure their privacy.
Where the "issue" of privacy violation comes in lies with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). In particular, FIPPA s.21(1) where it states:
quote:The issue comes in whereas an IP address alone cannot identify the user who actually established the connection. For this reason, unless a court order were issued to force the disclosure by a company such as Distributel (among others) just forking out this information would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy due to the lack of proof of who it was who physically initiated the connection.
21. (1) A head shall refuse to disclose personal information to any person other than the individual to whom the information relates except,
a) upon the prior written request or consent of the individual, if the record is one to which the individual is entitled to have access;
b) in compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual, if upon disclosure notification thereof is mailed to the last known address of the individual to whom the information relates;
c) personal information collected and maintained specifically for the purpose of creating a record available to the general public;
d) under an Act of Ontario or Canada that expressly authorizes the disclosure;
e) for a research purpose if,
(i) the disclosure is consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of disclosure under which the personal information was provided, collected or obtained,
(ii) the research purpose for which the disclosure is to be made cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the information is provided in individually identifiable form, and
the person who is to receive the record has agreed to comply with the conditions relating to security and confidentiality prescribed by the regulations; or
f) if the disclosure does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, s. 21 (1).
The short version is, while there are some responsibilities that the end-user has to protect their own privacy, there are actually also some responsibilities that the provider has as well.
said by MrMazda86:MrMazda86 your views are based on sound information and are consistant with mine. I suspect we may disagree with the necessary standards to be applied. I haven't organized my thoughts on that matter so won't bother posting. I'll definitely research the material you posted.
@QuantumPimp: I think you may be slightly "off" with where my position rests.
FYI: If you look again you should see that my post was a "reply to TypeS". He didn't respond nearly as graciously.