Theme

Welcome · log in · join	food

	All Forums		Hot Topics		Gallery

Forums → O Canada! → Canadian →

TekSavvy → Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status

uniqs
21

« Kickstarter for funds VS Voltage Lawsuits-CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED! • [Cable] Anyone down in Mississauga? »

This is a sub-selection from CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status

AkFubar Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN.	AkFubar to jkoblovsky Member 2013-Feb-14 4:51 pm to jkoblovsky Re: CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status said by jkoblovsky: 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. and 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. In other words judge realizes the evidence will be tested by potential defendants due to issues raised by the CIPPIC, which should have been raised by TSI directly in this case. If the motion stood unopposed, defendants (and TSI's customers) could very much shoulder the legal costs associated with defending against spotty evidence that should have been tested at the beginning of the case. While this development is a win for TSI customers, TSI is well within it's rights to oppose this motion at minimal costs. »excesscopyright.blogspot ··· isp.html Keep in mind currently it's not TSI defending consumers right to privacy under spotty evidence here. It's the CIPPIC. TSI should not be getting a pat on the back just yet. They have yet to show any responsibility to their customers on this. A statement echoed by the court order today! 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.
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 4:51 pm ·
jkoblovsky join:2011-09-27 Keswick, ON 1 edit	jkoblovsky Member 2013-Feb-14 5:12 pm 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.
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 5:12 pm ·
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa	sbrook Mod 2013-Feb-14 5:34 pm 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.
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 5:34 pm ·

morisato join:2008-03-16 Oshawa, ON	morisato Member 2013-Feb-14 5:40 pm I Am Glad someone is standing up for teksavvys customers.. Shame its not teksavvy thou. Does Cippic run a Isp by chance?
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 5:40 pm ·
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa	sbrook Mod 2013-Feb-14 5:46 pm »www.cippic.ca/
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 5:46 pm ·
jkoblovsky join:2011-09-27 Keswick, ON	jkoblovsky to sbrook Member 2013-Feb-14 6:24 pm to sbrook said by sbrook: 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. You're on the right track, but it's not the court that's to blame. The way our system is set up for to handle cases like this in court, is those holding the information behind that IP number (can be an ISP, can be facebook, can be google) are responsible for overseeing the legal merits of information requests. The accountability and oversight on your private data comes from the company holding that information. The courts very rarely get involved in oversight unless a motion to oppose is brought before the court. A company that doesn't oppose the motion agree's to the legal merits of it in the courts eyes, thus courts assume legal merits are sound, and personal information is sent possibly without oversight. That's what would have happened here due to TSI not opposing if the CIPPIC didn't get involved. There was a big discussion by legal experts on this: »openmedia.ca/blog/update ··· -crusade The problem right now in the system, is that there is such demand for big data, that very rarely is the private sector looking at the legal merits of the requests, and it's pretty much open season right now on personal online information, with little to no accountability. The EU is getting ready to bring in major regulations on their telecom and private sectors as a result. If this trend continues in Canada, I would suspect those here in Canada would be facing the same thing.
	actions · 2013-Feb-14 6:24 pm ·

Forums → O Canada! → Canadian → TekSavvy	« Kickstarter for funds VS Voltage Lawsuits-CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED! • [Cable] Anyone down in Mississauga? »
This is a sub-selection from CIPPIC has been granted Intervenor Status