dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3389
share rss forum feed


shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2

Copyright - Roles and Responsibilities of ISPs

Howard Knopf's take:
»excesscopyright.blogspot.com/201···ada.html

When did TSI become like France? :'(


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

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.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

said by jkoblovsky:

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.
There has been no news yet by the courts as to whether or not the CIPPIC will be allowed to intervene and we are getting very, very close to the 14th. It's time TSI customers take a stand on this issue!

I doubt it'll be decided before court on the 14th, as they'll want to argue additional reasons as to why they wish to intervene.. There are additional ones other than the ones in their motion to intervene filed last month.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2

2 edits

said by resa1983 See Profile
I doubt it'll be decided before court on the 14th, as they'll want to argue additional reasons as to why they wish to intervene.. There are additional ones other than the ones in their motion to intervene filed last month.

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/


Arcturus

join:2008-04-18
London, ON
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.


jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
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.


gert

@swissinet.com
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.



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
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.


JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

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.

The implication is that the court must allow at least one party to participate for the purpose of cross-examination of the motion, regardless of out-of-court agreements between the parties cited in the motion. Otherwise, we're looking at bad justice since it would imply that the court can ban cross-examination, thereby voiding a fundamental principle of Canadian law. Consequently, if no other party asks to participate, then by default the CIPPIC will be allowed to speak, since it will be the only party available for cross-examination. But let's not rely on that bit of logic.

It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1
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?



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

said by apvm:

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?

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


apvm

join:2003-02-14
London, ON
kudos:1

said by dillyhammer:

said by apvm:

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?

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

This is quite unfair, since only Teksavvy can contest the motion.

Did Teksavvy disclose how much administration fee they will charge Voltage per IP for the customer information?

I heard Rogers usually charge $200 per IP.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to dillyhammer

said by dillyhammer:

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
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?'



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

said by dillyhammer:

It appears as though Teksavvy and Voltage entered into some sort of an agreement whereby Teksavvy would refrain from contesting the motion if Voltage agreed to allow Teksavvy time to notify it's customers affected by the disclosure.

Mike

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

You could make the argument that by involving Teksavvy directly, they were giving Voltage an easy target (one large ISP to persue for all their "losses" concurrently) versus cooperating on the ISP level, and then letting the legal system and cippic take this on.

I may be wrong, but isn't this considered "gambling" with your customers information on the line?


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

1 recommendation

reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

I'm obviously not Teksavvy here, so I can't really speak for them but I think the idea was to let CIPPIC fight it rather than put the ISP business at risk.

Shrewd idea, if that is in fact the case. I'd like to think that was the case. If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by dillyhammer:

If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

Mike

If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
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...


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04
reply to shikotee

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


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

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.

Which in and of itself is a really good reason to NOT use Facebook & other social media sites; to always use different pseudonyms on each different site/forum you use; to use TOR or other means of obfuscating the IP trail back to you -- even if you NEVER do anything illegal.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to JonyBelGeul

said by JonyBelGeul:

[

It would be so much better if a party who is a potential target for the motion directly asks the CIPPIC to participate as counsel and expert witness whathaveyou. This way, the CIPPIC is assured a say on this, and the parties targeted by the motion are given a much better chance at success in opposing the motion.

^^^^
This

But I'll bet that at least one John Doe will be represented by their own counsel on the 14th. It would be nice if that counsel was Knopf. So somebody would have to pay a lot of money up-front to get Knopf down from Ottawa - retainers, travel time, travel disbursements, court time, hotel, etc....

CIPPIC could still get involved (I think) if they were named by John Doe as co-counsel. IANAL


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

said by dillyhammer:

If CIPPIC isn't granted intervenor status and the info winds up being disclosed for costs, effectively, the data on 2000+ customers was sold to a scumbag.

Mike

If CIPPIC doesn't get granted interevenor status then we all get to see what Teksavvy is really made of, hopefully it won't come to that.

I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

said by Tx:

I think this says it all... if the CIPPIC isn't allowed i'm hoping TSI legal kicks in to high gear. If they don't i'll be jaw dropped.

Well, if they have an agreement with Voltage NOT to oppose the motion then this whole thing backfires big time. The optics of it all is awful. Really awful.

As EQ mentioned - I hope it doesn't come to that.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to Tx

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly.
--
My Canadian Tech Podcast: »canadiantechnetwork.podbean.com/
My Self Help and Digital Policy Blog: »jkoblovsky.wordpress.com/



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by jkoblovsky:

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information. That's something consumers need to be aware of and also discussed, especially with the prospect of more of these "troll" lawsuits probably on their way where the CIPPIC can not be expected intervene. Glad that Knopf has chimed in here. There are some very real and consumer legal rights issues that TSI is not dealing with directly.

Oh trust me, i don't disagree with you. I'm sure a few around here can confirm my very passionate view on this matter. I've been a pretty loud voice on here about it. Enough so that Marc got upset with me.

I'm caught between a rock and a hard place... i truly respect and like Marc and some of his staff (especially the ones that roam these forums).... honestly good people, but then my issues become far more serious when it comes to handing this information over.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to jkoblovsky

said by jkoblovsky:

I think that the CIPPIC involvement here deflects attention on some critical issues and privacy implications within law that ISPs directly have to protect your account information.

Yup, and Howard Knopf called out both Teksavvy and Teksavvy's legal counsel on this.

But if you ask me, in my personal opinion, I get the feeling this is what Geist told TSI to do, and this is all Geists and CIPPIC's doing. It's Geists and cippics wet-dream to be running to the rescue in this type mass-p2p lawsuit.

But if this is really TSI's doing, then we will see... As you said it could come back to bite them hard on the ass instead of them standing their ground and challenging it all from the beginning.

Monday will tell. Maybe. If it isn't pushed back again. It will either be (in my un-expert opinion):
A) Disclose. End of story.
B) Cippic granted, date set for the future
C) Disclose, TSI & TSI's lawyers finally grow a pair and pipe up

"C" will have two out-come (as I see it in my un-expert opinion)
C1) Per agreement, blah blah blah, disclose it. End.
C2) or, Judge accepts the fight put forth (if they grow a pair). Date set for future.

Any other chess moves?

JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

Why would you think TSI is in bed with CIPPIC or Giest?
I mean it just looks bad on them from a customer's point of view to not challenge the motion and let someone else handle the situation. In my opinion it's just a bad business decision and will hurt TSI more than help.

This whole ideal is ridiculous in the first place (commercial infringement) and TSI is slapping all their customers in the face for not opposing.


Who7

join:2012-12-18

TSI will not be able to hide from a backlash if the thing sails through for the trolls.

You can't build a business on reputation for the little guy that cares.....and then screw 2000 peoples privacy to trolls.

I for one will move even if there is no advantage to it.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

Primus is offering unlimited DSL 7 Mbps @ $40 or so advertises Iam moving to them. So they advertise anyways.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to shikotee

Don't do anything hasty yet.. Let it play out Monday and see what happens. If it truly goes down the tubes and customer info is sold out without a single bat of an eyelash then customers can make their decisions from that point forward.

Though the precedence will be already set.