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.
you state you are a "db admin". Well DSLr is one big db. How about using search to see the costs involved, functions involved, service area's, man-hours, resources, ancillaries, and let us not forget about legal. Once you get past that hurdle, another light bulb may click about the costs involved after all the data is done. Then, there are even more costs one year later after the data is given (if given).
None of this seems to click into that head of yours.
I'm not one bit sorry to say that you have not a clue about what you are speaking of, db included, nor an clue what a company actually pays, and will continue to pay 1 to 3 years down the road when all is said and done.
If you even understood the most basics of basics you wouldn't be running your mouth about the costs, which are indeed low-balled (and TSI may just be coming to terms about how they low-balled the costs).
I don't think the court will cut TSI's invoice down by much, if at all.
Voltage is coming at the situation from the perspective of ANY IP that got 'caught' by their faulty unproven IP infringer software is 100% truthful, and it really doesn't matter whose name is coughed up by the ISP.
TSI knows better than that. They know that IP's presented by Voltage need to be researched to ensure that the correct billing ID is associated with a given IP at a specific point in time. We won't get into clock drift or other issues which can make the billing ID - IP association incorrect.
And you will note that I specifically said 'billing ID' and not 'user'. There is no way to know who the user really is. Maybe a single user household could be a case where the probability of knowing "who" is high - but it is far from certain even on the balance of probabilities. What threshold will a court use?
A six-user household gives a 16.6% possibility for any single user in the absence of any other means of selection. So Voltage goes after the account owner, and the account owner says, "Your Honor, it wasn't me, and I don't know who it was. Voltage is just guessing, and it isn't my place to be Voltage's investigator anyway." And at 16.6% the judge will throw the case out and tell Voltage that if they want to make a case they'll have to file against each person separately. Never mind the scope of possible users when there's a wifi router in the mix which may not have a password.
I wonder how many coffee shops are in TSI's 'identified' list. Which customer of the coffee shop will Voltage choose to sue and how will they identify that customer?
The Court will take TSI's efforts very seriously and not diminish them. The cutting of costs will only encourage sloppy work by any ISP. The Court has no interest in mis-identifying any prospective plaintiff as doing so will cause the administration of justice to fall in disrepute.
The administration of justice has already to fallen into disrepute through technology companies profiting off of the disclosure of user data. Which BTW is precisely what Snowden was speaking too in the SXWX conference back in March, in which I posted the video on this thread. In fact, the disrepute of the administration of justice is a key theme of Snowden's in most of his talks, and same with Drake as well:
"Even the finest Constitution is just a piece of parchment if no-one pays any attention to it."
Case and point. The public interest has changed dramatically since the beginning of Voltage and TSI, with a lot more on the line then just copyright trolling and with a lot of eyes on the telecom industry in Canada right now.
Nobody is 'profiting' from the disclosure of information in the court situations. They are recovering costs.
If you're such a wizard dba as you appear to claim, why don't you offer your services to TSI. I'm sure Marc would do something at the prospect of having you around.......
If you're such a wizard dba as you appear to claim, why don't you offer your services to TSI. I'm sure Marc would do something at the prospect of having you around.......
God knows he could use a good DBA to reduce admin costs to well below 200k, cure his corrupt data problem, and improve communication and efficiency All of which wouldn't be covered by the courts. I got better things to do. But thanks.
If you're such a wizard dba as you appear to claim, why don't you offer your services to TSI. I'm sure Marc would do something at the prospect of having you around.......
God knows he could use a good DBA to reduce admin costs to well below 200k, cure his corrupt data problem, and improve communication and efficiency All of which wouldn't be covered by the courts. I got better things to do. But thanks.
The majority of the cost usually isn't the fixed cost, it's the soft costs. For every hour you have someone out of the loop not doing their job it holds up other functions that depend on that person doing their job and takes more time to get caught up etc. In an office of 30-40 people a $10,000 software upgrade to MS Office is budgeted at $80,000-$100,000. The majority of it is lost productivity over a 90 day period. They actually rolled back one upgrade (2010->2007) because the productivity loss wasn't recovering.
Re: Voltage vs. Teksavvy progress: Continuing to annoy the judge?
said by JMJimmy In an office of 30-40 people a $10,000 software upgrade to MS Office is budgeted at $80,000-$100,000. The majority of it is lost productivity over a 90 day period. They actually rolled back one upgrade (2010->2007) because the productivity loss wasn't recovering.
Not if you have an MS Technet subscription. A buddy of mine purchased a technet sub for his company a few years back for between $1000 - $1500. Came with 75 keys for MS Office 2013 Pro and Windows 2007 Pro.
What I find usually happens in IT departments when they receive any updates to critical software used for the day to day business operations, is that those updates are often isolated to the IT departments and kept away from the critical infrastructure, than vigorously tested to ensure those updates will not negatively impact productivity before rolling them out to the critical infrastructure. I don't think loss of productivity could be pinned on MS in the above example, rather lazy, possibly unqualified IT staff.
You missed the point JMJimmy was making ... it's NOT the cost of the software upgrade. It's the consequential losses of doing the upgrades. An upgrade means system down time for the upgrade and testing. Sometime the upgrades don't go as they should and involve significant changes to databases, or to operations that ALL take time to resolve. Those costs have to be bundled into the cost of the upgrade.
And going back to the work done by TekSavvy to authenticate these IPs to account owners, similarly takes people away from what they should be doing ... that means work that should have been done by these people has been delayed. That time has value too. It's one thing to charge for the actual time to do the job ... but they have to charge for the real cost of the delay in doing the work these people SHOULD have been doing. The simplest estimate is twice the cost. There are other knock on costs involved too. As I said, the cost of the $20 per hour worker's salary becomes abou $80 by the time you add his overheads. THEN, you double it and you're now looking at $160 per hour.
The 10k software upgrade includes all the fixed costs (software license + testing costs + install costs + integration + training for certain staff). The soft costs include, but are not limited to, the lost revenue due to the fact that the staff at this particular office are so highly trained that they notice the difference when small operations start taking longer. The difference of them clearing 1 extra case in a year can amount to half a million in revenue. Usually not that much but not unheard of.
The point is that they know exactly how much time, down to the millisecond, each individual takes dealing with any particular case so when a piece of software slows them down it shows up right away. Normally, like with the transition from 03-07, by 90 days they've either improved the time or maintained it so the soft costs can be calculated based on when they hit that recovery point (at least for that portion of the soft costs).
Side note: integration/millisecond tracking is mostly because of TimeMatters.
I'm not arguing that there are extra costs involved in either case. With the automation of disclosure, those costs will be driven down substantially, if not already. I don't know what the break down is regarding TSI's costs to make any determination, however with most businesses using automated systems for billing, $100/record search seems very high to me, and would I think at the least look like a lucrative profit especially for Bell, and Rogers who already have their systems automated for LEA requests, as should most ISPs.
It's clear TSI had issues from what's been disclosed regarding data corruption, and other database issues. How much of that will be related to this specific case, and how much of that would be at TSI's fault to fix due to normal day to day IT operations, that's something I'm sure the judge would look at when trying to determine what would be reasonable in this case.
Time does matter but what happens when that time is reduced to seconds/minutes. What are the costs at that point? ISPs can use the precedent in this case regarding their own costs related to a search that would take at most seconds to do.
IT Admins of any business I've been a part of, work to reduce costs, and increase efficiency/productivity of their systems. It's how these costs break down not just in TSI's case, but future cases with ISPs going forward as well as we move towards a more automated disclosure system, which in most cases we're already there to begin with. That's something we all need to keep in mind moving forward. Those defending high costs of automated database queries, are not helping Canadian broadband users moving forward beyond this case.
Automated systems do not provide for the necessary level of due diligence required when revealing personal information. This requires human intervention according to strict protocols to ensure the accuracy of the data being released. The legal costs of releasing inaccurate information would be enormous. Fines for violation of privacy infractions are not insignificant. Make the right people pay.
Automated systems do not provide for the necessary level of due diligence required when revealing personal information. This requires human intervention according to strict protocols to ensure the accuracy of the data being released.
I wish every company would do that with their billing departments/software. Unfortunately we're likely to see minimal intervention, and due diligence can be set up in the automation process with building in checks and balances in the system. Human intervention will, and already is at a minimum, when we are speaking directly to the automation of LEA requests. Bell's direct LEA access to it's database, is a prime example of that. Due diligence if we were to follow through with what Snowden and others have said, should come in the form of testing the legality of the requests when received by the company. That's the best way to protect customers data, and also trust within the technology company. It shouldn't be built into the costs of providing that information. There are no checks and balances regarding what would be considered reasonable costs in law and legislation as it pertains to this situation regarding the disclosure of user data that I'm aware of. There's no limit that's been set for costs.
Anyways, glad to see good respectful discussion. We need more of that. I'm going to retire from this thread now. I've got work to do.
Re: Voltage vs. Teksavvy progress: Continuing to annoy the judge?
Is there any new information on this bullcrap matter? Or the next milestone is the hearing in December on how much money trolls are going to loose from their extortion profits to TSI?
Gonna be dependant on how much flack is generated by Voltage ... might be some more case meetings to get the ground rules relaid! But nothing significant for months.
Now that the political crap has been dealt with. The worst legal mistake on behalf of Voltage which will also affect TSI. Full disclosure (which neither party nor CIPPIC is currently offering this regarding the public interest):
>Jason, > >I'm one of the lead lawyers in the Voltage case. I've read many of >your blogs with interest. We're now preparing materials for the >next step in the litigation, namely, the issue of the proper costs >payable to Teksavvy for providing the Court ordered information. I >know that you have some views on this issue and would love to >speak to you. Could you call me? My cell is [redacted]. > >Thanks. > >James Zibarras >Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP
If I end up as a witness here it will be representing the public interest. I have quite the story to tell. The court needs to hear evidence that I've accumulated over the years, which is in respect to the public interest over copyright law, freedom of speech and political policy. I'm looking forward to serving the public, the internet community and the members of CGO in respect to this if need be. I'm also looking forward to seeing who objects to this testimony on public record. I'll let the uneducated speculate.
TSI's lawyers will look into your education, your mental health, your public rants, what your employer(s) thought of you, your unsubstantiated internet trolling, and make minced meat of you.
I certainly would not under any circumstances talk with them. Let them sort out their problems themselves.
A few things. First the e-mail is from about a month ago. My response:
>James, > >With respect, I will not be assisting Voltage or your firm to >troll Canadians. All of my blog posts are protected by copyright, >and are not to be used to mount a legal position against Teksavvy >users. I find copyright trolling immoral. You hire you're own >experts on the matter, I will not take part in this. > >Jason
In fact, most of my blog posts on copyright have been of the tone of legalization of personal P2P downloads, and on privacy matters relating to this case. None of which would help Voltage in court, in fact a lot of it would be detrimental to their case. The blog post their speaking about is in respects to a cost analysis for disclosure (written using TSI as an example to critique disclosure costs as it relates to not just copyright, but warrant-less lawful access legislation before the Spenser decision), to which costs were discussed on this thread, along with my public and political position on such costs as it relates to the public interest which is valid, and will continue to be valid as it relates to political policy.
I was also assisting several victims rights groups at the time of that blog post to formulate a political position against warrant-less disclosure. A large portion of these advocacy groups think ISP's need to be doing more to protect the identity of subscribers. This post would have been used politically by these groups to oppose C-13 had the Spencer decision not been rendered the way it was or had it been too late. The vast majority of Canadians (which includes several civil/victims rights groups I've been assisting outside of those supporting telecom) think ISPs need to be doing more regarding the protection of sub data, and also have very strong views against ISPs making any sort of profit off of the disclosure of that data.
Off side of that, Voltage didn't seem to read past that post, otherwise I very much doubt I would have seen contact from them.
I've notified CIPPIC of the contact with Voltage, and my reply to them, since they represent the public interest. CIPPIC is also a very close follower of my blog, and knows very well where I stand on copyright/privacy issues. While Voltage can use my posts without asking (curious as to why they asked in the first place), it would be under protest which I've given CIPPIC direction to register on my behalf in court.
The last thing the entertainment industry would want to do is put me on the stand, considering my position on copyright.
Yeah, unless you're subpoened I wouldn't say a word. The other side's lawyers will destroy you and your credibility.
I'm not worried about my credibility moving forward (as I've mentioned in previous posts on this forum regarding this case), more concerned about getting my political beliefs around copyright/privacy on the record and in court, if I am ordered to appear (which I doubt will happen). Could really care less about the lawyers from TSI or Voltage. Neither of them are acting in the best public interest of this case thus far. I'm going to continue to speak out on that. I think it's important for the public interest, and future public policy that I continue to be vocal on that.
I'm not worried about my credibility moving forward (as I've mentioned in previous posts on this forum regarding this case), more concerned about getting my political beliefs around copyright/privacy on the record and in court, .....
Ah. So this would be a vanity exercise for you.
Instead of meddling in a serious court issue as a dilettante, perhaps you should write a book about your beliefs/opinions and self-publish it - or try to convince a serious publisher to take you seriously.
I've been researching what has been happening regarding the digital shift in media for sometime. About 9 years now. I've written quite extensively regarding facilitating the use of P2P to gain income for artistic talent inside the music industry. Some of which has been viewed by the UNCTAD (agreed upon as correct), and a research arm of the Ontario Government in which will be used to develop provincial policy regarding copyright. All of which should be presented in court, imo. The statutory damages, and notice to notice legislation needs to be put through a constitutional judicial test. Attacking my credibility on the matter in court would essentially be like shooting the messenger. There is a lot of research out there in which links to, present and future business models around file sharing that needs to be fully understood by the courts. I think we risk unjustly putting families through a lot of unnecessary stress, and worry especially through the notice to notice copyright troll legislation.
There's solid evidence now that no harm has been done to the studio or artists regarding a personal P2P download. In fact quite the opposite. So much so that The Obama admin intervened in the Thomas-Rassat case when they applied to be heard before the US Supreme court on the constitutionality of statutory damages, stating that any ruling on the matter of the constitutionality of stat damages would likely legalize the use of P2P. The US supreme court decided not to hear the case. I don't think our Supreme Court would turn down a hearing on the matter, based on the amount of legislation before this court from the conservative government. I don't think that's being utilized to the full extent it should be due to telecom influence over those that are commenting on behalf of public interest in this case. We are going to see in December quite clearly who stands on the side of the public interest, who stands on the side of telecom, and who stands with the "copy-right". Important to see where those lines are for the development of future of public policy.
I've worked in the music industry for years. There are a lot of like minded people who share the same values as myself within that industry. I've gained not just their respect, but the respect of international accredited researchers regarding those views over the years. So i could really care less about what TSI or Voltages lawyers think about me. TSI is but a blip on the radar considering the grand scheme of things. They are largely irrelevant to the copyright debate. More relevant to how telecom handles subscribers privacy at this point, to which btw is of their own design.
Eventually economic research will make it's way up the court system at some point (almost everyone in the "copy-right" side of things I've spoken too agrees this will happen at some point, until then they want their copyright) especially if Voltage pushes forward. They quite obviously don't have the ability, to see what's in front of them. That's quite clear after them contacting me. Quite clear to those who have followed me for years and know what I'm about including CIPPIC. Voltage royally screwed thing up for them if I get my day in court.
Unlike some in the copyright debate, i would never sell me soul to the devil. I made a promise a few years back to Jamie Thomas-Rassat that I would do what ever I could to ensure no Canadian family would go through what her family had too. I promise I still hold dear today. Important to note that most of us are on the same team. The difference between myself and others fighting this battle, is I don't believe in pussy-footing around the political sensitivities of the "copy-right". They should be put in their place regarding public policy and law as it relates to economic data. I think that's extremely important to educate not just the public, but the judicial system and law makers on exactly whats happening for the future of public policy on this matter. I strongly disagree with the approach of social engineering through mass surveillance (notice to notice) while sending out political ideology that downloading is wrong, when the data strongly suggests otherwise. That's a very undemocratic way of thinking, and something Geist strongly supports.
Well, looks like an ISP in Austrailia has bigger balls than Teksavvy. iiNet opposing motion to disclose in the face of these Voltage trolls, and taking on thier responsibility as an ISP and not hiding behind rocks.
Old question that has been hashed and hashed and hashed. It's ultra old news by now ... why have you returned to stir the pot when the decision was made.
To reiterate, it's very simple ... It was not up to TekSavvy. It was up to Voltage to convince a judge that they are entitled to go on their fishing expedition. That decision was essentially made, subject to Voltage paying up The defence was up to the public at large.
CIPPIC is a policy body with legal experience in this field and represents the public at large.
The judge made the decision and it's up to Voltage to agree to pay up or go away. Thus far they have balked at paying.
To reiterate, it's very simple ... It was not up to TekSavvy.
To that I whole hardley disagree with. Still waiting for my court summons. Would love to air my thoughts on the subject before the judge. IMO, and I've stated this before, the public interests would have been best served if CIPPIC waited for the disclosure to exhange hands before getting involed. Thier role in this case thus far has relieved the legal responsibitities of TSI as an ISP. I understand the playbook, just strongly disagree with the protectionist behaviour towards a private company those fighting for the public in this case have displayed. It shouldn't be CIPPICs job to make arguments on behalf of TSI's customers. That's for TSI to do and quite clearly, that's also what iiNet is doing. TSI isn't directly involved in going to bat for thier customers and should be espesially at this stage in the game.
But then again, it's about the profit from the $20,000 TSI will be getting off of disclosure as discussed above.
I don't know whats worse. Rick Mercer on Copyright law, or TSI
BTW the day after the Mercer video aired, York University (*caugh* if you could call it an independent institution after this) indoctrinated Mercer with an honourary law degree. Not one peep from Openmedia that our nations newsrooms have been over run by copyright trolls. I guess we can get used to these trolls in Canada from now on. Nobody is sticking the legal steak through the heads of these trolls yet. Still waiting for the "big plan" while the copyright extremists get stronger with each day that passes. 3 years have now gone by. They've taken Mercer hostage, along with the News Directors of every newsroom in the country, and York U. This big "plan" for keeping copyright trolls at bay doesn't seem to be working well at all.
If Openmedia was serious about copyright trolls they should be fully engaged with the competition act right now to rid our telecom providers of those trolls (I have the CRTC portion of this covered).
Plus things have changed on the privacy front over the events of the past week. ISPs need to take on a much more hands on approach to subsciber privacy due to what's headed our way on the legislative front as it's inevitable that future legislation will come into conflict with the Charter as it pretains to sub privacy. Which TSI users should be keeping a close eye on as it pretains to not just this case. CIPPIC's involvement in this case to allow TSI to take a hands off approach on thier legal responsibilities to thier sub privacy has complicated things going forward on a number of fronts now. We need a strong message sent to all telecom providers to respect our constitutional rights by the public interest. That's not going to happen if that public interest is too busy protecting our telecom providers rather than the public.
TSI chose a path in law, which allowed TSI subscibers to defend thier privacy in court as it pretains to disclosure, rather than objecting to the motion. The way they've done it was unreasonable under the circumstances (in which I strongly believe the court would agree with) and I have no problems with bringing that to the courts attention if called upon to do so. As this pretains to the public interest, CIPPIC should be bringing this up on December 8th, if representing the public interest is thier main goal. IMO I have absolutely no doubt that if any info exchanges hands, TSI could be on the hook for unauthorized disclosure. It's time they step up to the plate.
There are unintended coniqueces especially when a private company is protected by those who are supposed to be on the side of public interest. Private companies have nothing else in mind other than thier bottom line (TSI is no different), so public interest can't be served without the independence of those who fight for the public interest. Otherwise the sitatuion ends up with a whole pile of vomit on the floor as the plan starts to fall apart due to private interests.