dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
20

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx to Viper359

Member

to Viper359

Re: Rogers Contact Customers on Computer Problems?

said by Viper359:

Save your armchair lawyer rant. You have no clue what you are talking about. Its Rogers network, and their responsibility to ensure its continued operation by removing anything that might be detrimental to it.

WTF????? I was referring to the home network side of the modem NOT the Rogers network side.

And I'm not wrong about ANYTHING here son. My home network is my home network and Rogers has zero right to ANY access past my modem.

That's the way my network is set up and that's the way it stays. Go flame somebody else!
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359

Premium Member

Actually, Rogers does Papa. If you don't lock down your ports, or your router, Rogers, and anyone else, has every right to scan your network finding leaks, holes, and security issues.

You seem to confuse accessing and scanning. Rogers doesn't access anything, they scan ports, sending requests, and await answers.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to elitefx

Member

to elitefx
You're wrong most of the time. Stop deluding yourself.

MJB33
join:2012-01-29

MJB33

Member

have you ever heard of the 4th amendment the right to privacy gosh...

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Pardon? The 4th amendment to what? Oh yeah, the AMERICAN constitution. Last time I looked, Rogers and their customers are in *Canada*. The American Constitution does not apply here. In fact good chunks of it don't even apply to Canadians visiting the USA!

I can see it now ... Sue Rogers in Ontario for violations of the 4th Amendment (the Unreasonalbe Search and Seizure Clauses) in an Ontario Court. Let's see what the Justice has to say about that one!

MJB33
join:2012-01-29

MJB33

Member

»ca.answers.yahoo.com/que ··· 0AA9n9u2
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca ··· Freedoms - section 8

see the fact is that our version is section 8 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms ... same as the fourth amendment...

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Yes and no ... Canada's applies to persons present in Canada ... the American to American citizens from what I understand.

Anyway, this is a red herring. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to our governments in respect of its natural persons. It does NOT protect us from corporations. Which is why companies may be legally permitted to search you and your person on entrance and exit from their premises where governments are generally NOT permitted to search you without warrant or accepted good reason.

MJB33
join:2012-01-29

MJB33

Member

well then so.so what he said is that he doesn't want rogers inside his intranet... the lan side of the network.... rogers only covers up to the split near the house or the demarc for cable... a cable company can't be responsible for a intelligent person who knows what he is doing... the can't violate his privacy...... did rogers install all the hardware or build the house.... god... what if the customer did it himself... then they can bug off

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Privacy is a different matter covered under other laws.

humanfilth
join:2013-02-14
river styx

3 edits

humanfilth to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Yes and no ... Canada's applies to persons present in Canada ... the American to American citizens from what I understand.
Anyway, this is a red herring. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to our governments in respect of its natural persons. It does NOT protect us from corporations. Which is why companies may be legally permitted to search you and your person on entrance and exit from their premises where governments are generally NOT permitted to search you without warrant or accepted good reason.

Canadian charter of Rights applies to all people occupying Canada(visitors and residents).
U.S. Constitution applies to all occupying the U.S.(visitors and residents).
The problem lays in where the home government of a person who is visiting in Canada or the U.S., will negotiate to have their countryman not be fully prosecuted under the laws of the country he is visiting. Commit murder in Canada and be prosecuted in Canada, but negotiate to serve your sentence in the U.S. with the flaws of early release as Canada no longer holds him accountable.
If you are visiting Malaysia, then you are expected, within reasonable knowledge of local laws, to respect their laws.

Visiting a corporations building(lets say CTV), the security guard can lightly search you(wand), but they can not touch your genitals/bosom, as that is a crime.
A movie theaters security guard can only visually look in your purse but can not physically search it or you.
Same goes for the airport security guards(TSA), but they molest people and kids on a daily basis anyways and people refuse to research the laws that protect people from being molested.
The above, As per laws regarding security guards and their legal powers of being a private citizen(observe/report) with a fancy uniform. North Vancouver had some mall security guard(power tripping) violently drag a guy out of a wheelchair under the allegation of shoplifting. The security guard committed a crime doing that.
A police officer needs probable cause to stop and search(and not just "well I be searching everyone, so you are next, sucker) and may be allowed touch genitals through clothing in a very probable cause of crime and some obvious hidden loot, as he is now in the process of an arrest. Tasering of the genitals for information is still illegal. Females to be searched by females. Males to be searched by males.

*
*
For OP:
Rogers needs to work on how they contact people to notify of problems. ISP should send an email to call tech security support, with the notation to look on the clients bill for ISP contact information.
Some cases of notification are false positives, which result in much trouble of the user looking for the problem, when the ISP refuses to identify technical criteria of the problem.
MacrossFreek
join:2001-03-26
Toronto, ON

MacrossFreek

Member

Several years back I got a call from Rogers about a similar problem.

They told me they were seeing some suspicious/unusual activity from my modem and when I asked for some more specific details, they either said they couldn't go into specifics or didn't want to (I don't remember which). Basically they told me to check all the computers in the house and then asked me to verbally agree to something he read off a piece of paper about abuse of network etc.

I did nothing to any computers and haven't got a call since.

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti U6-LR
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

TLS2000 to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Yes and no ... Canada's applies to persons present in Canada ... the American to American citizens from what I understand.

Anyway, this is a red herring. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to our governments in respect of its natural persons. It does NOT protect us from corporations. Which is why companies may be legally permitted to search you and your person on entrance and exit from their premises where governments are generally NOT permitted to search you without warrant or accepted good reason.

Companies are NOT allowed to search you for any reason without your permission. Government can search you if you give them permission as well (without a warrant).

What a company CAN do is refuse to allow you to be on their property if you don't consent to a search. This is done under the Trespass to Property Act (in Ontario). Basically they say can we search you, you say no, they say that's fine, but you can't be on the premises.
TLS2000

1 edit

TLS2000 to humanfilth

Premium Member

to humanfilth
said by humanfilth:

Visiting a corporations building(lets say CTV), the security guard can lightly search you(wand), but they can not touch your genitals/bosom, as that is a crime.
A movie theaters security guard can only visually look in your purse but can not physically search it or you.
Same goes for the airport security guards(TSA), but they molest people and kids on a daily basis anyways and people refuse to research the laws that protect people from being molested.

You are mistaken,sir. No one has the right to search you without your permission, unless it's a peace officer who has reasonable grounds. With permission, security at CTV or a movie theatre can search you the exact same way. They can't touch your genitals, unless you give them permission to. They can physically search your bags if you give them permission.

Also of note, it's technically illegal for a security guard to search a person after arresting them, but most police agencies expect it to be done before they pick up the person who has been arrested for their own safety.

TSA is an American outfit and doesn't do prescreening in Canada. That's done by CATSA and the agencies that they hire. The are given authorization under the Aeronautics Act to search you.
said by humanfilth:

North Vancouver had some mall security guard(power tripping) violently drag a guy out of a wheelchair under the allegation of shoplifting. The security guard committed a crime doing that.

The crime committed was probably the use of excessive or unnecessary force. I don't actually recall reading about any charges being laid against the security guards in question.
said by humanfilth:

A police officer needs probable cause to stop and search(and not just "well I be searching everyone, so you are next, sucker) and may be allowed touch genitals through clothing in a very probable cause of crime and some obvious hidden loot, as he is now in the process of an arrest. Tasering of the genitals for information is still illegal. Females to be searched by females. Males to be searched by males.

Police need reasonable grounds or a warrant to search someone. Probable cause is an American term. Even then, they generally have to genuinely believe a crime has been committed. Some exceptions have been made, such as Criminal Code provisions for roadside stops, such as the RIDE program because they're considered to be for the "greater good". Remember, RIDE is the police detaining you without reasonable grounds, but is accepted by the courts under case law.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

When I started posting in this thread I ASSUMED most folks have a basic understanding of Canadian Law.

The Canadian Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of Canada. No other laws, authorities, companies, entities etc. may operate or be in force and effect where said laws, authorities, companies, entities are in violation of the Constitution.

When the OP stated the issue was regarding "problems with either her computer or router" that was clear indication of a private home network intrusion and in violation of the Privacy Act and Section 7 of the Constitution "Security of the person" and Section 8 "which provides everyone in Canada with protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides Canadians with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state (State meaning ANYONE in a position of authority). Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

Rogers may be big BUT their interests do not outweigh the interests, rights and protections afforded the Canadian people.

Pauly
join:2004-05-29
canada

Pauly

Member

my father in law got the same call from robbers.

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti U6-LR
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

TLS2000 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
The constitution is there to protect you from the government.

A security guard is in a position of authority, but that does not mean that the provisions in the constitution apply to them. There is other legislation that does though.

You have freedom of peaceful assembly, which could mean protesting. You don't have a right to protest on Roger's property though, because you'd be trespassing.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Exactly TLS2000.

You have the right to submit to a search to enter a private facility, but the facility staff then have the right to refuse you entry as a result.

Pauly
join:2004-05-29
canada

Pauly

Member

so no body has answered the question asked over and over, is this LEGITIMATELY ROGERS CALLING or is it a hoax like the microsoft calls telling us we have a virus on windows even though im running a mac?

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Most probably genuine (and I've said it before in this thread) ... It is a Rogers phone number ... if it were a hoax, they wouldn't give a real Rogers phone number.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx to TLS2000

Member

to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:

The constitution is there to protect you from the government.

With all due respect:

Any Canadian Legislation (from municipal to federal), no matter who it effects or their status in Canadian society is subject to, and must abide by, the terms of the Constitution.

This is not an "us against the government" protection but rather a Supreme Law that governs and regulates ALL other Canadian Law. It applies to EVERYONE up to, and including, the highest government official.

State (the term) = ANYONE, ANY CLASS, ANY GROUP in a position of authority over ANY other member of Canadian Society.
said by Canadian Constitution :



PART VII

GENERAL

Marginal note:Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· -15.html


sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Read what you quoted elitefx ... The various governments and its agencies cannot create laws and enforce those laws in a manner which violate the terms of the constitution and charter.

Just because I, as a private citizen, do something that would violate the charter were I a member or agent of government, does not automatically mean I have broken the law.

The Charter stops a government from enacting laws which would violate the charter. For example, if the government created a law that states that the police can stop you at will, search you and your car for donuts, and confiscate them, then this law and its ensuing enforcement would be unconstitutional.

If a donut shop says you can't take uneated food from the restaurant and will confiscate it if you are visibly seen doing it, then that's NOT unconstitutional.

A government MAY enact a law that says restaurants cannot stop you from taking paid for food from the restaurant though. That is constitutional.

The constitution is all about the laws that the government can make and cannot make.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by sbrook:

If a donut shop says you can't take uneated food from the restaurant and will confiscate it if you are visibly seen doing it, then that's NOT unconstitutional.....The constitution is all about the laws that the government can make and cannot make.

Actually, we're both saying the same thing. The Donut Shop is authorized by law to conduct business as they see fit and your personal rights are enshrined within the Charter.

It can get pretty complicated but I'm sure by now we all have the general idea what it's all about. Signing off........elitefx

TLS2000
Premium Member
join:2004-02-24
Elmsdale, NS
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti U6-LR
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

TLS2000 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
You are incorrect again.

You have freedom of expression. That doesn't give you the right to express yourself on my property. If I see you doing so, I'm going to tell you to leave. If you don't, I'm going to make you leave. If you resist me making you leave, I'll arrest you and you'll be charged with trespassing.

The press has freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to go traipsing around on other people's properties in order to get a story. Where I work if we see the media on property without an invitation, they are asked to leave.

As sbrook says, the constitution is there to control what laws the government can enact and enforce. Also keep in mind that the courts have established case law that allows the constitution to be set aside for specific things, such as the RIDE program I illustrated above, or even incarceration since it's against your charter rights.

The state is quite literally the crown, her representatives in the government and anyone who is authorized to exercise the crown's authority. That's what you're missing. It's not any person of authority. It's the Crown's authority specifically.