O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Nice to see I'm not the lone voice here. I absolutely 100% agree to this following statement from Knopf's blog post:

It is a legitimate question to ask whether an ISP, rather than categorically deciding a priori not to resist disclosure motions, should at least be expected to review the supporting documentation, to get an expert opinion as to whether it meets the requirement of the law as laid down by the courts and Parliament, to notify all of its customers of the proceeding (if it is too burdensome to notify only those whose IP address has been singled out by the would-be plaintiff), to post copies of these documents, and to explain why, if it is the case, that it believes that there is no reasonable basis to challenge the disclosure motion on privacy grounds.

Knopf blog raises a lot of my concerns with respect to the legalese of all of this. Knopf also represented the CIPPIC the last time this came up.

Even though the CIPPIC is involved here TSI still needs to come clean to it's customers with respect to why they are not directly challenging this. Marc statements with respect to not challenging this due to the "new copyright legislation" are false and misleading within law. Knopf who is one of this country's top copyright experts and lawyers pretty much backed up that claim with this post.

The privacy implications of this are huge. I've written about this, in fact I had a lengthy conversation today with an internet security expert, who pretty much is stating that there are currently no laws around data-mining. It's quite easy to obtain information and build a profile through social media sites, facebook in particular (whether it's private or not). The privacy commissioner has warned several times on this, stating that information obtained this way can lead to false profiling. This is one of the reasons why the privacy community is strongly recommending a re-write of privacy legislation to ensure that there is no misuse of consumer information.

Once they have your name, they can pretty much build a case against you. There is an entire industry built around that right now. We're seeing pretty much the tip of the ice burg here and because of current privacy legislation it's pretty much legal.

There is a forthcoming white paper on the subject that in fact will be presented to the government in the next few months. I'm pretty sure I'll be getting a copy of that.

If a company is choosing to expose it's customer base to this, the least they owe is an explanation as to why they are doing it and why they feel the plaintiff's evidence is strong enough, that they have chosen not to directly oppose it.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

reply to shikotee
Great write-up by a top lawyers saying what most of us (that are upset with Teksavvy) have been saying. Teksavvy should be fighting this.

I don't know if it is to late for Teksavvy to even change their position at this point, and unfortunately prior to the December hearing most of us were assuming Teksavvy was going to fight the good fight. Then suddenly the day before court we get a mysterious hey guys I'm not going to fight for you tomorrow GOOD LUCK.

This is what really shocked me personally, and made me (and others) go out of our way to let TSI know if they do not fight for us, they won't need to bother next time because we won't be customers anymore.

What everyone posting has to remember is there is a chance that CIPPIC will be denied to even speak or take further action in this case. Teksavvy representatives are the only ones that 100% will have a opportunity to speak.
If CIPPIC is denied to speak and Teksavvy isn't opposing the motion will be almost certainly be granted.

reply to resa1983
Another quote from Knopf backing up some earlier claims I made that often courts do not look at the request unless opposed:

Flash forward from 2005 to 2011 when Voltage Pictures sought disclosure of customers’ private information from certain Quebec-based ISPS, one of which, Vidéotron, was actively on side with BMG in 2004. In any event, the ISPs simply took no position and did not oppose the order or even appear at the hearing of the motion. The Federal Court was apparently satisfied with the paper work that was presented and left unchallenged. The proper parties had been served. Understandably, the court granted the order. It is not the court’s role nor is the court equipped to conduct its own investigation, which might even require cross-examination, into the adequacy of such material.

reply to Arcturus
Teksavvy seem to be arguing that they agreed to not fight the motion if Voltage allowed them time to notify the customers affected, which Voltage were (unsurprisingly) reluctant to give.

Essentially this is, yes, a load of nonsense of course, as they had clear grounds to fight given the lack of credible evidence and this represents an abrogation of their duty to their customers.

I believe they are passing the buck to CIPIC in the hope that this other organization will indemnify Teksavvy themselves from involvement in the case, a layer of protection from the whole ordeal.

reply to Arcturus
Well the CRTC is 100 percent to blame for all of this. They approved the cost of the last mile that Teksavvy has to pay to Bell. Maybe the members of the CRTC can fork over all the money for legal fees since they're the root cause of everything as usual.

reply to jkoblovsky

reply to shikotee
I am confuse here. Does that mean Teksavvy never ask how Voltage obtained those IP address and if the method used is accurate enough etc?

reply to dillyhammer

reply to shikotee
This blog post Howard Knopf a lawyer and copyright expert has only just confirmed what most of us upset about this have been saying. The whole thing is absolutely puzzling.

It's the 'meh' attitude about the handing over info without an ounce of 'but why?'

reply to El Quintron

reply to El Quintron

reply to Tx
Yep TSI really screws over their customers here... It's more puzzling to think some ppl believe its not the responsibility of the ISP to question the motion...

reply to shikotee
Should change thread title to "This is why we are opposing the motion" and cc Marc...

reply to jkoblovsky