dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1701

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

1 edit

elitefx

Member

Rogers Privacy Policy: That's A Joke

Think your PERSONAL info is safe with Rogers? Think again. As reported on CTV news TODAY, Rogers hands over personal info upon request to Law Enforcement no warrant needed. Their reason? Rogers wants to make sure the police have accurate arrest warrants so they don't arrest the wrong person. THAT was the statement Rogers released to CTV news.

The LAW says Rogers is only required to hand over personal data WITHOUT A WARRANT if time is of the essence and a life is at risk.

Apparently, telecoms in Canada get paid for turning over your personal data. Who's to say Rogers isn't getting paid to spy on YOU and hand over any and all info they access? After all, Rogers does have a pipeline right into your HOME and right to your computer.

Sooooo NOW does ANYBODY see a PROBLEM with Rogers accessing your Gateway and possibly your home network and the data contained therein?

Rogers reasoning for warrantless disclosure is so full of holes that an idiot could see it's another Rogers lie. They're ratting us out and making quite a few bucks doing it considering they do it THOUSANDS of times every year.

And just when we think Rogers couldn't sink any lower they manage to screw us AGAIN..............
Rogers_Chris
VIP
join:2010-12-15
Toronto, ON

Rogers_Chris

Member

Here is the statement we provided to CTV today:

We take privacy matters very seriously and comply with all regulations. The security and integrity of our customers' personal information is important to us and we will continue to take every reasonable measure to protect the privacy of our customers.

We only disclose customer information if we have a properly executed warrant or an order to produce information as required by law. The number of requests reported to the Privacy Commissioner includes different kinds of requests. Many of these are basic requests to confirm a customer’s name and address so police don’t issue a warrant for the wrong person, which is in accordance with CRTC rules and privacy legislation.

We recognize that our customers and Canadians are looking for more information, and that’s why we’re looking at how we can provide more details within the law. We will work with the Privacy Commissioner and Government of Canada with the goal of being as transparent as possible while complying with legal disclosure restrictions. We encourage Canadians to join with us in seeking clarity from the Government about what can be disclosed.
Expand your moderator at work

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth to Rogers_Chris

Premium Member

to Rogers_Chris

Re: Rogers Privacy Policy: That's A Joke

Why is any information at all being released without a warrant or permission from the customer directly? Seems to me that the privacy of your customer should be paramount above all else, especially in this day and age.

As a Rogers customer, this infuriates me. No one has the right to my personal information without my explicit permission. Whether I'm doing anything wrong or not, you should not being sharing that information without a warrant and or unless it's literally a life or death situation.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
I have not seen the story, but, I question anything from a direct competitor to Rogers. I would do the same if this was about Bell, on a Rogers owned news site. In fact, I find it funny, a Bell owned company, doing a story on Rogers privacy. That's the biggest joke.

I would be more interested in the actual numbers, and a total breakdown for them. For example, cellular subscriber information. Unlike the landline way, your subscriber information for your cellphone is not passed along automatically when you call the police, fire, ems, or 911. They have to obtain the subscriber information. This is automatic if I understand correctly, but, would this count towards the "warrantless" handover of info. Thus, skewing the actual numbers.
Expand your moderator at work

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth to Viper359

Premium Member

to Viper359

Re: Rogers Privacy Policy: That's A Joke

Handing over information due to fire, EMS or 911 is certainly reasonable of course. It's anything else that's the issue. If information is being handed out and it doesn't fall under the category of an emergency (Which btw, ensuring the correct person is charged is not an emergency and should require a warrant), that's just not cool.

As for the source of this news, Bell is most likely guilty of the same thing so it really doesn't concern me who is making the accusation. They're all cut from the same cloth.
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON

ings to nekkidtruth

Premium Member

to nekkidtruth
said by nekkidtruth:

As a Rogers customer, this infuriates me.

I share your wish that the telcos had a stiffer backbone. But I suggest the passion be directed at the government (and your MP) which seems intent in destroying whatever semblance of privacy we have left in the modern era. The government has a lot of tools to make your life unpleasant if you don't cooperate, even if you are a large business like Rogers.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359 to nekkidtruth

Premium Member

to nekkidtruth
Yup, I agree with everything you said. I would be very interested in the real numbers. With that being said, I question if any of the telco's can resist? I mean, if the law is the law, and, if there is case law, or precedence, then, what can any of them really do. This whole topic is of interest to me. Not because I am worried that the coppers are going to knock in my door, and arrest me for downloading a tv show, that my Rogers box failed to record, or that the Government is secretly spying on me. Nope, My interest in this is based on businesses, and their collection of my personal information in every single aspect of my life. ---This is what I have a problem with. Try downloading an APP for your mobile phone, if you want to use it, you must pretty much, give them access to everything.

I don't trust Government, but I understand politicians. No Government of the day is going to do anything that might piss off the majority of the nation, risking them losing their jobs. So collect all the info you want on my website viewing habbits, what songs or movies I download, because I know, they will never take any action on it. Business on the other hand, they have proven they cannot be trusted, and will do whatever they can to make a buck. These are the ones I worry about with my privacy. My tinfoil hat is not on for Government, but for business!

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON

nekkidtruth to ings

Premium Member

to ings
Oh don't you worry, the government doesn't get off scot free.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me to elitefx

Member

to elitefx
I find it humorous to think that anyone on this site thinks they have privacy.

Between Snodden documents, Heart bleed, Revenue Canada, and all other news surrounding the lack of privacy with the Internet..

It's one of those.. "Really?.. you thought you were hidden from prying eyes?"

If anyone cares, go read the CRTC laws surrounding telecoms and privacy.
Keeping in mind federal and provincial laws, Rogers and Bell are subject to both.

Do they provide information to anyone that asks? No.
Do they provide various information to law enforcement? bits like your name and address which is information you consent to be shared by ordering most Rogers products if you ever read the legal terms or laws?

Absolutely.

If you have 911 you've consented.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by cepnot4me:

I find it humorous to think that anyone on this site thinks they have privacy.

Well, the Federal government, the Supreme Court and by and large, the people of Canada disagree with you on this because of one small detail.

It is THE SUPREME LAW OF CANADA that overides and overules EVERY other Canadian law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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.

Section 8 does not apply to every search or seizure. Rather, the right focuses on the action being unreasonable on the basis that it violates the expectation of privacy that a reasonable individual would have.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se ··· Freedoms
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me

Member

Um.. what?

This has nothing to do with the charter of rights.

Maybe you don't understand what CTV said.
Rogers will provide the names and addresses to various levels of law enforcement.

Your not being searched. They aren't arresting you, and if they are. It's cause Rogers provided your name address and anything else requested in a search warrant.

You agree to list your name with 911. Your address, Rogers provides that info to emergency services. Without a warrant.. cause they don't need one.. cause it's not against your civil rights to provide your name and address.

Your talking like Rogers is providing your download and browsing history to anyone with a badge. That's not what is happening, that's not what the press is on about.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by cepnot4me:

Um.. what?

This has nothing to do with the charter of rights.

AND for the record, EVERY law, regulation and lawful action in Canada is subject to the intent and direction of the Charter of Rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled we can't 'consent' to a Criminal act. By extension, ANY contravening action against Charter rights, by Rogers or ANY entity IS a criminal act and punishable under Federal law.

CRTC regulations don't even come close to having any power in these circumstances.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me

Member

And regarding what I said about no privacy. A hacker could care less about your charter. The documents from Snodden prove at least the CIA doesn't care, wouldn't surprise me at all if CSIS doesn't care.

Fact of the matter is, sure. Your privacy should be protected. Would you really be surprised if it wasnt?

Oh no! Someone is going to see porn in my browsing history!
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
Except for that clause called the "notwithstanding clause" which makes the Charter nothing more than a piece of paper, suited for wiping ones arse with.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me to elitefx

Member

to elitefx
Once again. Providing your name and address, IS NOT a violation of the charter of rights.

You seem stuck on repeating an invalid argument.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
If you are going to link to wiki, trying reading it. Its a few paragraphs down, the following: " Information which does not "tend to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual" is usually not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. For this reason, utility records are generally not subject to an expectation of privacy"

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS DON'T QUALIFY.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by Viper359:

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS DON'T QUALIFY.

You have no idea what info Rogers is handing over. Just because they say it's 'name and address only' don't mean shit.

And as far as the Wiki link goes it was just a quick reference. The entire Charter version is available online for those that are unfamiliar with it's contents.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359

Premium Member

I am well aware with the contents of that useless hunk of crap Pierre Trudeau threw upon us.

You brought up the Charter nonsense. Now you are reaching, claiming Rogers is handing over everything. Lets be real here. If some Government agency wanted deeper information, they don't need to ask anyone to provide it. Its well within their ability to obtain it on their own, without asking anyone.

Tinfoil hats are fine, but, the Government is not the threat here. Big Business that stockpiles our personal data, and makes money off it is. All of these companies that continually get hacked, all that personal information, that should never been kept in the first place, exposed. I don't fear Government, I fear big business. Greed is a far more sinister problem than a Government that wants information to catch real bad people. DON'T READ ME WRONG, I don't trust Government, but, as I said above, they aint going to do shit that would risk them losing their seats in any election, today, tomorrow, or five years from now.

Before someone jumps to the Nazi and Jew connection, as someone always does, they already have that information, in things like birth certificates, health cards, SIN's and tax returns. Difference between now and then, is today, its electronic, easier to search.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me to elitefx

Member

to elitefx
Your right.
The big red machine is selling our browsing history, candy crush high scores, and Facebook stalking details to other governments and agencies.

This is how they purchased their stake in the Buffalo bills.

I'm mortified.

So you go find us a lawyer willing to take on this case. And we will jump on board a class action lawsuit or even a good ol western lynching once you do.

I will say this. If a police officer wants information including my name and address from Rogers, it's a headache. It's a process, they don't have a 1800 number to call to get it. They know what they can ask for, but rarely do it. You gotta be really suspected of something big for them to go that route.
I have cops in the family, we've had this conversation.
If your suspected of child pornography charges, they go to the ISP. They build a case over months against you, starting with your IP. And they usually get your name and address with a warrant because the process is such a pain in the arse, they get your name by easier methods than your ISP.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to elitefx

Mod

to elitefx
It's a shame that the Charter isn't well understood ...

First ...

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In other words ... there are limits and if they are reasonable and can be justified in the context of a free and democratic society, the charter can be broken

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or Seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.


This is the part people are talking about here ... and in each case there are the "exceptions" that will cost you mega $ in legal fees as you spend your life savings to prove you are right, as the big companies keep outlawyering you.

32. (1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.


And this is the kicker that sooooo many people misunderstand. The charter ONLY protects you from the government.

If a government agency goes to Rogers and says we are interested in John Doe's cell phone locations between 8am and 12pm on Monday ... please provide the data. This is not "search" nor is it "seizure" ... unless it was demanded ... i.e. Rogers was threatened with a charge of obstructing justice for example.

If Rogers hands over that info, that's not a charter violation, because it's not the government demanding it, or giving it up.

What IS significant in these cases is Privacy Legislation such as The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)

It's only Charter if it's the government doing the violation.

It's PIPEDA if it's private individuals.
cepnot4me
join:2013-10-29
L0C 1K0

cepnot4me to Viper359

Member

to Viper359
Couldn't agree more.

I always say, if I expect total privacy... stay off the Internet. stay off the grid.

If Net Neutrality is defeated, goodbye privacy, hello unlimited profits to the companies that track my mouse clicks.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

Viper359 to sbrook

Premium Member

to sbrook
Finally, someone who understands the Charter. Since I took about 2 years worth of University courses, just studying the Charter, and its related articles, its refreshing to see someone that gets it! This part, proved it to me, about you, "The charter ONLY protects you from the government."

Hence why we have things like Human Rights Tribunals etc. The Charter only applies to the Government, and its ABC's.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by Viper359:

"The charter ONLY protects you from the government."

And last time I looked 'Law Enforcement' IS an agent of the government.

At least we agree on something...................
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

Viper359

Premium Member

You have clearly never seen or conducted a FOI request, or ever looked at disclosure for criminal code charges. Out of the hundreds of disclosures I have seen, every single one had a warrant obtained for subscriber information in regards to criminal activities online. (That is the limit of stuff I have seen)

It takes a few hours, tops. No detective is going to risk having a child porn case tossed, or a fraud case, etc, because, he didn't take the two hours and get a warrant, which, is almost always issued. All that needs to be shown, is reasonable grounds that someone, at that IP address, is in possession of, or making child porn. (This is the example I am going to use) The copper either swears that he or she received it directly from this IP address, (a pic or something) or engaged in a chat with someone at this address. Sometimes, the JP will ask for more information, most times not. They may ask to see a transcript for example.

Your rights are usually protected by nothing more than a person who applied to be Justice of the Peace. You don't have to be a lawyer, to be a Justice of the Peace. Do you understand yet?

Cops aint calling up Rogers, asking for information out of the blue. I assure you, lawyers would have a field day with just one missing judicial process.

It is stunning just how little people know about the legal system in Canada. People watch a show like Law and Order, and all the sudden, they are experts. Warrants are a joke! Reasonable grounds is a joke. It all boils down to trial, and how well a lawyer argues the reasonable grounds was unreasonable, thus, striking down the warrant. Even then, you still have 2-3 appeals before its finally case law, if the prosecution bothers.

elitefx
join:2011-02-14
London, ON

elitefx

Member

said by Viper359:

Cops aint calling up Rogers, asking for information out of the blue. I assure you, lawyers would have a field day with just one missing judicial process.

Well, according to CBC news reports, the coppers, border security etc. requested info from telecoms last year 780,000 times. Over 99% of those requests were not accompanied by a warrant.

That is why the ombudsman and the privacy commissioner are investigating and THAT is also the purpose of this thread.

'nuff said.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

Viper359

Premium Member

then why did you go off on the Charter tangent? I showed you, UTILITY BILLS HAVE NO REASON FOR PRIVACY.

By the way, you call the cops, and don't provide your information, due to incapacitation, call ending before your done, or, its entered wrong, they ask for it. That would be a warrantless release. Its done, hundreds of times a day.

If you called in an accident, and suddenly, someone dies, they will request that information, to get a hold of you. Again, its all common, and legal.

This is nothing more than two twits, with little to no power, looking for some headlines. You, like the CBC, are making a mountain out of a molehill.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to elitefx

Mod

to elitefx
And last time I looked 'Law Enforcement' IS an agent of the government.

And what you're skipping is the manner under which they get information ... if they coerce an ISP to hand it over, then that is seizure. If they take their computers, then that's seach and seizure.

But if they ask the ISP and the ISP hands it over, that's PIPEDA, not the charter.
Viper359
Premium Member
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON

1 edit

Viper359 to elitefx

Premium Member

to elitefx
You also need to understand how the system works. Landlines generally send all your info, cell towers do not. Its stored, and someone requests it. On a 911 call, life or death, this information is usually automatically requested, including cell tower location, in the event, you are unable to provide your location.

Many systems in use by police, fire, and ems are outdated, and never designed to handle the call influx, and included data, of cell phones. For example, a minor car accident, years ago, you might have received one or two callers, today, you can have 10-20 people calling 911 regarding it. Some of the systems I have heard about, don't automatically include this information as its irrelevant, and takes up needed space. Almost all callers are lumped into one call on the event, thus, adding lines of text for every single caller takes up way too much space. Remember, the cop, the paramedic, and the firefighter all read the same screen on CAD. Hence the "requests"

Here is a really good article describing issues in the USA, which, most certainly, occur here.

»www.fiercewireless.com/s ··· 13-11-12