|
GoGoGoatCart to sbrook
Anon
2014-Aug-1 1:26 pm
to sbrook
Re: Voltage vs. Teksavvy progress: Continuing to annoy the judge?High costs and a low judgment could scuttle the whole thing.
The judge could just assign $100 fine, if Voltage pays over that for the names... |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 1:26 pm · (locked) |
3 edits |
to sbrook
said by sbrook If a low cost, the same process guarantees they'll go for the future and the court process to disclose will become all too easy and the floodgates will open if the next stages work too. I disagree. Last time I checked on the court docket regarding this troll case, is that the court already ordered the disclosure. What happens when you take the profitability of disclosure away, and when your angry customers get a hold of you because you disclosed that information:
»www.thestar.com/news/can ··· nge.html
I don't want Voltage to get any information either. But it will be up to the courts on what's considered to be reasonable. I've had to deal with ATI requests as a journalist/advocate myself. I've had to challenge a few that I found unreasonable ($900 for information that was supposed to be made public by our local school board here in one case). In almost all cases those costs were reduced substantially if not nullified through an independent inquiry. So I don't think moving forward that the ideology of making the costs unreasonable is going to in anyway protect users data in this situation after the court has already ordered this information released. Think about it. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 1:26 pm · (locked) |
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
I think you're missing my point. Yes the court has ordered disclosure ... IF Voltage pays up.
The number of people they go after and the amount they seek when all is said and done is dependant on what they had to pay to get the info, never mind the copyright infringement extortion.
Costs shouldn't be a matter of profitability to the ISP. In fact the ISP shouldn't profit at ALL ... it is "costs", not "fee" to disclose.
The ISP is doing due diligence to ensure that it's not giving away invalid info and due diligence costs. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 2:01 pm · (locked) |
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
said by sbrook:Costs shouldn't be a matter of profitability to the ISP. In fact the ISP shouldn't profit at ALL ... it is "costs", not "fee" to disclose. At $150/user for one of the members of the Robellus cartel, it's profit not fee. No way in hell are they paying someone to do a database query significantly more then Marc at Teksavvy is. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 2:28 pm · (locked) |
4 edits |
to sbrook
said by sbrook I think you're missing my point. IF Voltage pays up. As a database admin, here are a few thoughts regarding database searches. Keeping in mind that the system in the very near future regarding notice to notice will resemble below:
2000 IP addresses were searched through this database to find the matching subscribers. Manually inputting the IP addresses shouldn't take more than a few hours, however getting a digital list of IP addresses, and running an SQL script to automatically search the database should take no more than 15 minutes for the development of the script (assuming you're not using MS SQL and manually inputting the script and running test searches). It should only take a few seconds once the script is run to query the database and come up with subscribers tied to those IP addresses.
I'll be conservative here with the numbers. This can easily be done with 2000 records manually within one 8 hour working day. At $20/hour x 8 hours = $160. This cost gets even lower when the database system gets automated. An estimated initial cost of maybe $500 would be required to automate this type of database search, secure the database, and send e-mails out automatically. After that, it should take maybe less then 10 minutes from receiving IPs in digital form to send notices out to customers. I've actually developed this type of database system for a small business client over a decade ago to handle his account receivables on payment due and automatically notify his clients through e-mails and texts of past due accounts (by using businesses records not IP addresses). This can be easily adapted to the copyright notice to notice regime, in fact most businesses, let alone telecommunication companies are already using this type of system for billing purposes.
»torrentfreak.com/canadia ··· -140311/
"The notice-and-notice law permits the government to set a fee for sending a notice that an ISP can charge. At the moment, it does not look like the government will establish a fee, preferring to wait to see how the system develops. Were this [business model] to come to Canada, the government might face increased pressure from ISPs to allow them to charge for their participation in the process" Geist concludes
Thus profiting off of the disclosure. The government has not set a fee for the notice to notice provisions in the final draft and passed I think before the summer break as memory serves correct, paving the way for the profitability on disclosure of sub data. It doesn't look from a technical stand point, that Geist is being forthcoming with this. I'm not arguing against that there are costs associated with due dalliance moving forward, but I think the court needs to be extra careful here on what exactly are "reasonable" costs. This could potentially lead to a system where both the ISP and the entertainment industry may make this little venture profitable, which essentially is why I'm angry right now at a lot of "customer rights" advocates right now backing the telecom industry from these types of moves, and what this could mean for the disclosure of your personal information moving forward, and far beyond this and any other copyright related case.
Again, you remove the profitability of the situation, and it will force the telecom and private industry to solidify consumer rights in law as they will be dealing with a very angry customer base as Rogers and Telus have found out, and are now actively involved in securing their customers charter rights within law. Taking the profit out of subscribers data in this way, is also the preferred ideology shared by most former NSA employees who are now whistleblowers. Simply put, your data and personal information can only be secured, when those who have it, are not making any money from the disclosure to third parties from it and more engaged in ensuring the rights of their customers are respected within law. Your information should not be disclosed at the gatekeeper level due to profit. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 3:21 pm · (locked) |
|
DemoCracy
Anon
2014-Aug-1 4:42 pm
Article from torrentfreak is about Rightscorp... Here is the latest on these arseholes: "...now Rightscorp aims at unmasking their targets identities. Rightscorp bullies mostly small ISPs by filing petitions (like this one) and sends out subpoenas without court leave. The trolls state that ISPs owe them peoples identities, and doing so our businessmen simply ignore the case law they dont like..." » fightcopyrighttrolls.com ··· iblings/ |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 4:42 pm · (locked) |
|
to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:said by sbrook:Costs shouldn't be a matter of profitability to the ISP. In fact the ISP shouldn't profit at ALL ... it is "costs", not "fee" to disclose. At $150/user for one of the members of the Robellus cartel, it's profit not fee. No way in hell are they paying someone to do a database query significantly more then Marc at Teksavvy is. You also have to consider the complexity of the system. Robbers I'm sure is needlessly complex due to hiring cheap labour who don't have the expertise - it's what they do. TSI is probably easier due to the fact that they are fairly centralized, however, they're also dealing with both cable and dsl. They also are working with log files, not databases. While it's easy to convert them/parse them, it does take time/expertise to do it properly. Once that's done they still have to do the correlation which isn't always as easy as doing a query. said by jkoblovsky:his can easily be done with 2000 records manually within one 8 hour working day. At $20/hour x 8 hours = $160. What self respecting DBA would work for $20/hour? You're also oversimplifying things - they're not dealing with SQL databases, they're dealing with multiple log files that all need to match up. If one records the IP as being user A and the other user B you need to investigate the details. My IP was assigned to the Montreal block yet they claimed they were limiting to Ontario - that needs to be verified. There are all sorts of scenarios that aren't as simple as a 15 minute query and you need someone who understands the details properly to avoid this: » www.cbc.ca/news/politics ··· .1338630 |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 6:33 pm · (locked) |
4 edits |
said by JMJimmy What self respecting DBA would work for $20/hour? You're also oversimplifying things - they're not dealing with SQL databases, they're dealing with multiple log files that all need to match up. A few things, I'm a DBA as well, and essentially DBA's usually are left for the administration of the database, not working 8 hours to search through records which could be assigned to low level database entry employee's. They would only be brought in I would believe to verify the data from the search, in which case they would look at the code to verify and maybe do a few test queries.
Second, through the disclosures people are getting back from requests people have sent out recently to numerous ISPs on their personal information, your IP address and past IP addresses are logged into the customer, and tech databases. To reverse engineer that process; if this information is readily available to tech support on your customer record along with CSR's having access to this information, than any respectful DBA can agree that those log files are dumped into a database accessible by different departments, and the database is set up in relation to the customers info. If that's not the case now, it will be moving forward on the notice to notice approach. I have one hell of a time believing that TSI doesn't do this. Communicating between departments would be impossible. Logs would also have to be in a database table at some point for LEA requests coming in and the companies retention policies. As a DBA the system is most likely automated to ensure that when you are assigned an IP address, the database is updated accordingly, and automatically. Log files are very easily converted to database format.
Bell is essentially giving law enforcement direct access to their databases. How much will ISPs get and what will happen when all of this is automated for notice to notice by all ISPs, and how much will these ISPs profit from this type of automation. We'll find out in December it looks like. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 6:55 pm · (locked) |
|
DemoCracy to JMJimmy
Anon
2014-Aug-1 7:05 pm
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:What self respecting DBA would work for $20/hour? I totally agree. And its not only that. There is a cost of a corporate hour which is definetly higher then $100. Example: Your neiboughr's kid might be coding PHP for $20 per hour but agency does it for $350-500 per hour. It does not mean that professional PHP development costs $20 per hour. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 7:05 pm · (locked) |
|
to jkoblovsky
said by jkoblovsky:I have one hell of a time believing that TSI doesn't do this. I'm sure it's heading that way but as of the lawsuit they didn't. Only 1100-1200 of the 2000 names could be verified due to missing/corrupt/discrepant logs. *Edit: or just bad information from Voltage due to faulty IP collection |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 7:15 pm · (locked) |
|
said by JMJimmy I'm sure it's heading that way but as of the lawsuit they didn't. Only 1100-1200 of the 2000 names could be verified due to missing/corrupt/discrepant logs. *Edit: or just bad information from Voltage due to faulty IP collection Lets hope that the conversation in court turns towards both of the above issues, rather than inflating costs and both parties profiting from disclosure resulting from missing/corrupt/bad logs, and faulty software used by Voltage/Canipre for IP collection. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 7:46 pm · (locked) |
|
to jkoblovsky
Out of curiousity... Do you work for $20 per hour? Or if you are working for a corporation does your corporation bill $20 per hour for your work? Curious what kind of a cheap corporation is that. Trolling assholes sure extort WAY more per hour. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 7:52 pm · (locked) |
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
More importantly, it's not $nn per hour ... it's at least double that, because work that they would be getting done otherwise isn't. And if the pay scale to the employee is $20 per hour, after overheads it's closer to $50 per hour, then double that for the work not being done and you're now up to $100 So that 8 hour day is now $800. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 8:05 pm · (locked) |
|
to DemoCracy
said by DemoCracy :Out of curiousity... Do you work for $20 per hour? Or if you are working for a corporation does your corporation bill $20 per hour for your work? Curious what kind of a cheap corporation is that. Trolling assholes sure extort WAY more per hour. Don't know about jb, but the typical DBA (depending on area of course) will make a $30-$45/h |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 8:56 pm · (locked) |
4 edits |
said by JMJimmy Don't know about jb, but the typical DBA (depending on area of course) will make a $30-$45/h As I've stated in the above post, $20/hour = low level data entry search. This is something in house data entry can do. A DBA would most likely be brought in to verify the data for the seach. There could be additional costs as sbrook has suggested, which would have to be proved and reasonable. $500 for initial set up with the DBA or for a DBA to verify results of a system already set up for searching IP tables that are already related to the customer database. That's also being conservative (cheap) with the numbers. Using your numbers, actually makes the costs cheaper.
How much is TSI asking for again 20k for costs associated on disclosure or something like that? Thats one hell of an expensive database search. What are the reasonable costs going forward? The answer to that will determine the profitability and viability of the notice to notice system as it relates to telecom disclosure which is essentially what i think will be worked out in December when the courts decide what's reasonable. Since the government didn't set a fee for notice to notice, it's now up to the courts in December to do that with this case. Will ISPs show a profit margin as a result? Again up to the courts, however I don't think the overall motive is keeping trolls a bay with costs so high, how can anyone not expect them to take exception and challenge these costs legally, and try and bring the costs down in court to a reasonable level. You've got to very special to believe this wouldn't happen if the costs were marketed up. How exactly would that keep the trolls a bay when it would ultimately be up to the courts to decide what reasonable costs are on disclosure, after an expected challenge by the trolls. Its a lot harder for a company to defend the costs (my experience with ATI requests) when challenged.
Shoot high and hope for the best on disclosure costs? Sounds more of an issue of negotiating costs to me then it does a viable tactic too keep the trolls at bay. I very much doubt the breakdown of these costs will be made public by TSI, but I hope they are for the public interest and scrutiny as it relates to a future system of notice to notice.
We have a right to know how our personal information is being used, and who will potentially make money from the disclosures from any Private company. Important for consumers to be informed on this so that they can choose the technology provider that will best suit their needs especially for those looking to secure their communications from abuse of third parties. Thats important in this day and age of dragnet surveillance. |
actions · 2014-Aug-1 9:57 pm · (locked) |
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
There's a difference between selling our data for their own profit and "selling" it for cost to the courts. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 9:18 am · (locked) |
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to GoGoGoatCart
Remember too that they went through the entire list of IP addresses several times, due to IP correlation errors.
They most likely did the first pass quickly, and then when they got feedback from people who insisted they didn't download, went through the IPs several more times.
They also did some of these correlation checks in very short time frames (one was done the night before the first court hearing), so having multiple people in a few short hours checking 2400 IPs manually would be costly.
Also, the judge didn't say anything about Teksavvy recovering all costs, or making them whole.. Its very possible the judge will decide the amount Teksavvy is requesting to make themselves whole for the time spent on the correlation is too high and cut it down - which is what Voltage is trying to do. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 9:21 am · (locked) |
|
to jkoblovsky
The discussion is really moot - courts have already approved higher costs in criminal cases for Bhell/Robbers so TSI asking for 10-15% less than the cheapest they have had approved shouldn't be an issue. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 12:21 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
to resa1983
said by resa1983 Also, the judge didn't say anything about Teksavvy recovering all costs, or making them whole.. Its very possible the judge will decide the amount Teksavvy is requesting to make themselves whole for the time spent on the correlation is too high and cut it down - which is what Voltage is trying to do. As I stated above, the high costs are quite likely negotiation tactics for their costs in court, rather than an attempt to keep the trolls at bay. This is quite normal in a civil proceeding. If the court has left room for Voltage to challenge those costs, and TSI has pushed the costs higher than what they expect they will be awarded, than wouldn't one expect Voltage to challenge these costs from the get go? It doesn't seem that high costs in this case are meant to keep the trolls at bay. There's no logic to it if there's room for this to be challenged in court.
You always aim high when "negotiating" a price for anything to try and obtain the maximum amount of costs. The actual costs related to disclosure are somewhere in the middle if not less then what TSI is asking for in regards to disclosure. I think it would be expected by all parties that these costs would be bumped down. The question is to what degree, and will these costs represent "actual" costs to TSI nothing more, and nothing less.
That's something regarding how these costs will be interpreted in the future by other ISPs re: notice to notice, that the public needs to keep an eye on. It is more than likely that a breakdown of these costs for disclosure will not be made public by TSI, or challenged by CIPPIC who is supposed to be representing the public interest in this case, which is concerning on several levels moving forward with notice to notice, and other legislation currently in the pipeline. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 12:32 pm · (locked) |
|
Voltage_BS to resa1983
Anon
2014-Aug-2 12:54 pm
to resa1983
I still find it absolutely unacceptable that trolls did not go for the initial seeder and never sent C&D notice first, before going into the extortion scheme. That makes entire judgement questionable. No questions about GuardaLey business practices and business scheme were askedm let alone about their buggy software. Buggy German software capturing Canadian IPs sold these to Canadian who-knows-what-Canipre that in turn has shady relationships with trolls. No real technical expertise was used to kill that entire legal circus on conception phase. Really disapointing. Bullshit at its finest. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 12:54 pm · (locked) |
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to jkoblovsky
There is no 'negotiating' costs in a court setting. The Judge makes the decision.
If you bring a fake 'costs' amount to a Judge and its proven they were falsified, you're in massive trouble with the courts. I highly doubt that Marc would ever put Teksavvy at risk for sanctions, with a fake costs number.
Teksavvy presents their costs. Voltage argues why they're too high. Teksavvy states how they came to those costs. Goes back & forth over every line item. If anything is bumped down, it'll be the hourly rate for some of the employees doing the IP correlation, then things would be recalculated based on those new numbers.
There's no negotiation. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 7:12 pm · (locked) |
resa1983 |
to Voltage_BS
said by Voltage_BS :I still find it absolutely unacceptable that trolls did not go for the initial seeder and never sent C&D notice first, before going into the extortion scheme. That makes entire judgement questionable. No questions about GuardaLey business practices and business scheme were askedm let alone about their buggy software. Buggy German software capturing Canadian IPs sold these to Canadian who-knows-what-Canipre that in turn has shady relationships with trolls. No real technical expertise was used to kill that entire legal circus on conception phase. Really disapointing. Bullshit at its finest. Very possible one of the original seeders was US-side, and was sued down there already. But yes. Guardaley and Canipre are all kinds of shady. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 7:14 pm · (locked) |
4 edits |
to resa1983
said by resa1983
Teksavvy presents their costs. Voltage argues why they're too high. Teksavvy states how they came to those costs. Goes back & forth over every line item. If anything is bumped down, it'll be the hourly rate for some of the employees doing the IP correlation, then things would be recalculated based on those new numbers.
There's no negotiation. Agree to disagree, however that sounds a lot like a negotiation to me. I would still love to see the breakdown of costs for disclosure made public by TSI. ISP transparency key going forward in an age of dragnet surveillance. It's in the public interest. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 9:31 pm · (locked) |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Aug-2 10:26 pm
said by jkoblovsky:said by resa1983
Teksavvy presents their costs. Voltage argues why they're too high. Teksavvy states how they came to those costs. Goes back & forth over every line item. If anything is bumped down, it'll be the hourly rate for some of the employees doing the IP correlation, then things would be recalculated based on those new numbers.
There's no negotiation. Agree to disagree, however that sounds a lot like a negotiation to me. I would still love to see the breakdown of costs for disclosure made public by TSI. ISP transparency key going forward in an age of dragnet surveillance. It's in the public interest. More arbitration than negotiation, as its the Judge who makes the decisions as to what amount is paid, and not a Voltage/TSI agreement. Breakdown will be covered at the public hearing. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 10:26 pm · (locked) |
|
said by resa1983
Breakdown will be covered at the public hearing. Glad to hear that We got a lot of legislation coming in this fall, that will test the trust of the public. Future legislation to build that trust back depends on the transparency and honesty regarding the disclosure of user data by private industry. |
actions · 2014-Aug-2 10:39 pm · (locked) |
|
Voltage_BS to resa1983
Anon
2014-Aug-3 3:08 pm
to resa1983
said by resa1983:Very possible one of the original seeders was US-side, and was sued down there already. Yes. However, their so called "works" mentioned in a case are seeded as we speak and nothing is done about it. "Lost sales" my arse For example a useless flop called "Killer Joe": » thepiratebay.se/search/k ··· 0/99/207 |
actions · 2014-Aug-3 3:08 pm · (locked) |
|
to jkoblovsky
Costs, and the break-down of costs, have been detailed in previous topics. More than once.
TSI actually low-balled the costs. It actually comes out to a good deal for Voltage. Hope more costs get added for lost time and man-hours due to their wanting money for free, and trying to exploit the courts for their free money.
jkoblovsky, one day, in the far future, when you can run your business on a total of $20/hr, and teach other companies how they can run a business on 20$/hr, you will be a billionaire with your seminars and consulting kits.
As you reflect upon this, maybe one day (a very long time from now) a light bulb might go off in your head and you may realize what you are stating is pure quackery. |
actions · 2014-Aug-3 3:23 pm · (locked) |
3 edits |
said by invalid :Costs, and the break-down of costs, have been detailed in previous topics. More than once. Yet you provide no links to the breakdown of those costs in other topics relating to disclosure? If the breakdown of the costs for disclosure have been provided in several topics on this forum, why not link to them? In fact I've been looking for topics relating to this for over a year on this forum, I haven't seen any breakdown of disclosure costs, just generalized amounts relating to those costs, and legal fees. As far as the rest, the questions I've raised in this topic are valid in respects to the public interest. Should ISPs make a profit for disclosure in notice to notice, and other disclosures through bills like S4 and is that happening here with respect to the disclosure costs? I'm not accusing anything, however I am asking for transparency, so that those costs can be looked at by the public interest moving forward, and questioned openly. Last I heard it was 20k for disclosure costs which seems a bit high to me. It may be those costs are legitimate, however without the breakdown of exactly what was involved we don't know that, and it should be put to discussion as it relates to subscriber data disclosures not just with TSI but other ISPs moving forward. |
actions · 2014-Aug-3 4:49 pm · (locked) |
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Aug-3 5:13 pm
No. IP Correlation costs were pegged at approx 200K back in Dec 2012. With attorneys fees and such on top, it'll be even higher now. |
actions · 2014-Aug-3 5:13 pm · (locked) |
|
said by resa1983:No. IP Correlation costs were pegged at approx 200K back in Dec 2012. What? 200k? Well, it'll be interesting to see the breakdown of these costs when they become public. |
actions · 2014-Aug-3 5:15 pm · (locked) |