|reply to lleader |
Re: Why we are not opposing motion on Monday.
said by lleader:Are you really suggesting that Teksavvy deliberately misinformed some people that they were targets when they weren't, and at the same time not inform people who were? I don't believe it.
I think you guys badmouthing TSI were sucked in just like the bad guys. I believe TSI knew what cards they were going to play today - they just weren't about to discuss it here in the forum and tip their hand.
In fact, it's more than a little disturbing. How many other mistakes are there in the data that haven't been noticed -- either made by TSI or by CaniPre? One of Shaw's objections for not wanting to reveal the owners of IP addresses back in the BMG case was that they didn't want to open themselves up to lawsuits from their customers if there were mistakes made: "Moreover, if Shaw were asked to speculate or required to guess at this type of conclusion
about the identity of users or subscribers, Shaw is concerned that it would be required to assume a liability for incorrect information. Shaw might well find itself having to respond to a financial or other type of claim or to a complaint under PIPEDA by a subscriber if the conclusions or guesses were incorrect."
Which all leads me to wonder... If somebody is falsely accused and they can prove their innocence, do they have the right to sue TSI and/or Voltage for costs and damages? I'm starting to feel more and more sorry for Teksavvy and the unenviable position where they've been placed.
said by tired:
Are you really suggesting that Teksavvy deliberately misinformed some people that they were targets when they weren't, and at the same time not inform people who were?
I am absolutely NOT impling this. I am saying that at some point they realized this was happening and that they needed more time. But to have discussed that in this forum would have allowed the bad guys to prepare a more detailed challenge to this.