Also, the accuracy of the same information when obtained from other entities is diminished as well, according to the ability of these other entities to maintain an active link with this IP. This ability is primarily determined by the user himself; logins, apps, updaters, open active web pages, etc. In other words, the same information from other entities is inherently inaccurate by virtue of relying on high-level protocols.

I could go on about dynamic IP's. Suffice to say, dynamic IP's mean IP logs for any other entity except the ISP who assigns them is useless, thus is unlikely to be maintained except by the ISP, if at all.

I never claimed it was practical but people who are genuinely concerned about their "IP privacy" still need to realize how hopelessly public their IP really is.

Agreed, except in context, all of the above have privacy policies that govern the use of your ip, email and PIDs

So more less, voltage attempted to extort money but most likely will end up paying money.

ISPs may be the simplest and most reliable way to associate an IP with someone but not the only one by a long shot. Each site you register with and sign into is a potential privacy leak.

TSI is the legal guardian of our personal information, governed by privacy laws, and by the privacy agreement.

Your name is everywhere. The association between your name and your IP address is not neccessarily private information. For many, the IP is nothing more than like a phone number ... quite public. After all there's no guarantee that the person using your phone is actually you. What this is really about is protecting the innocent from malicious lawsuits. That's not the same as privacy and that is between you and the court. Not the phonebook printer.

So, IPs being "private" sounds like a false sense of security as far as I am concerned... particularly when people are simultaneously logged into FB, GMail, Twitter, DSLR, etc. Every advertiser and middlemen knows your IP and which account it belongs to. They just do not have direct access to the personal info behind that account ID... but much like ISPs, that ID is only one court order/warrant away.

My understanding is this information is not public otherwise there would be no problem having it published (and without involvement of the courts). It is also why the ISP is involved in this situation as the information is proprietary to them.

As has been stated, TSI is potentially in a position of aiding and abetting these copyright violations. They could well have been threatened with a suit if they didn't take a neutral stance - we just don't know.

Your name is everywhere. The association between your name and your IP address is not neccessarily private information. For many, the IP is nothing more than like a phone number ... quite public. After all there's no guarantee that the person using your phone is actually you. What this is really about is protecting the innocent from malicious lawsuits. That's not the same as privacy and that is between you and the court. Not the phonebook printer.

The online data that needs protection is far more than simply the name associated with the account that was online at time X on date X.

What matters in this case is verification that someone on a system assigned to IP x at a date and time did in fact violate copyright law and whether the person who supposedly violate copyright was assigned IP x, otherwise the court is potentially ordering the release of a name (I can get anyone's name from a phone book and after all there's no real difference between an IP and a phone number) but in doing so the court may be subjecting them to nothing short of persecution by false suit.

And of course the risk of further persecution and further false suits.

So this is not really about data protection it's all about risk of persecution by releasing names and that is the court's job.

As has been stated, TSI is potentially in a position of aiding and abetting these copyright violations. They could well have been threatened with a suit if they didn't take a neutral stance - we just don't know.

Again it's the CIPPIC representing consumers here, not TSI.

Dead parrot

said by AkFubar
Further, TSI has not had the opportunity to fully explain it's position in this situation because of the pending hearing. They have indicated this is the case previously. I think it would be wise of you to restrain your criticism until you know the details of their stance.

Constructive criticism should always be welcomed. I too believe this has to play itself out, however it is also important to re-enforce what consumers rights are and the roles and responsibilities ISPs have under law regarding your personal information throughout this process going forward. That's very important, not just from a copyright point of view, but from how your online data is used online as well.

I'm looking on this with a different set of eyes then most. There's a lot of abuse of privacy when it comes to your online data.

We have laws in place to help curb abuse. That legal responsibly falls with companies that hold our private information to ensure requests are within legal standard and merit. If private companies don't start doing their part for whatever reason, than this system of accountability and oversight doesn't work, and your online data could be used for pretty much anything, by anyone. That's the threat here.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CIPPIC-has-been-granted-Intervenor-Status-28011459 Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:12:32 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-CIPPIC-has-been-granted-Intervenor-Status-28011318 said by TSI Marc:

it seems the judge also recognizes problems that could arise in this case if the motion remained unchallenged. It's not just Knopf, it's now also federal judges that have taken issue with TSI's stance and problems that would create.

Again it's the CIPPIC representing consumers here, not TSI.

The CIPPIC has been granted full intervenor status is because no one else is stepping up to the plate that should be. That's quite clear in the judges order on this:

UPON considering the motion record of CIPPIC, the responding motion record of the Plaintiff, and the reply of the CIPPIC, and noting that the Respondent TekSavvy Solutions Inc. has not taken a position on this motion.

CONSIDERING that the issues raised on the Plaintiff's motion, if determined without opposition, will not likely be contested or revisited by the Court at the request of the newly identified and served Defendants, since, by then, their identity will have been communicated to the Plaintiff and the issue might be moot.

Howard Knopf is a "I know better, I know it all" person. I do not have any confidence in this type of people.

And it is easy for Distributel to oppose now, AFTER Teksavvy stepped in and some things are more clear AFTER Distributel fails to do so in November ...

Just saying it is not all black and white ... So far Teksavvy did the part they suppose to do!

UPON considering the motion record of CIPPIC, the responding motion record of the Plaintiff, and the reply of the CIPPIC, and noting that the Respondent TekSavvy Solutions Inc. has not taken a position on this motion.

CONSIDERING that the issues raised on the Plaintiff's motion, if determined without opposition, will not likely be contested or revisited by the Court at the request of the newly identified and served Defendants, since, by then, their identity will have been communicated to the Plaintiff and the issue might be moot.

Do they? I don't see that stated there.

Is it a given they will be directed accordingly at some point?