dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed

activoice

join:2008-02-10
York, ON
reply to m3chen

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

said by m3chen:

@activoice:
As for piracy; you seem to have a similar stance as TSI_Marc but fail to understand one key aspect of this whole shebang: Its actually about privacy. Unless they could prove to TSI / the Court that their evidence was actually valid and not-hearsay, they shouldn't even be allowed 1000 ft near anyone's private information.

Right but I don't think that's the way the legal system works... you have to identify the defendants first before you can bring a lawsuit against them. The only way to do that it is to get a court order to reveal who they are.

Something similar would be if you were committing mail fraud by using a Canada Post PO BOX.. Canada Post would not be expected to go to court on your behalf... Canada Post would get a court order to reveal the owner of the PO Box, and you would then get contacted by the crown.

Tong

join:2012-12-11
r3t 38x

In the case of mail fraud, there is a The bona fide case of crime be committed and authorities is committed to bring the person(s) to justice.

In the case of these trolls, 1. there is no bona fide case of a crime commit, at most this is a civil matter. 2. they are not committed to bring the person(s) to justice/court, they just want money, they don't care if yo are actually guilty or not.


m3chen

join:2009-12-03
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to activoice

@activoice:

As Tong states above, these are two very different cases. I think the OP's blog poster says it best in this quote:

"Many would argue forcefully that it’s not only the right thing to do but it’s an ISP’s job and duty to guard against clearly (or even arguably) inadequate attempts to open the door to mass litigation against its customers. That has enormous privacy implications. Shaw and Telus fought hard for this in 2004, with Bell and Rogers at least somewhat supportive. An ISP that stands up in this type of situation is not taking sides in the copyright wars; it is only defending its customer privacy – which is arguably, at the very least, not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do."

*The emphasis is mine and I feel it best represents how most of us (TSI customers) feel.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

4 edits
reply to activoice

said by activoice:

said by m3chen:

@activoice:
As for piracy; you seem to have a similar stance as TSI_Marc but fail to understand one key aspect of this whole shebang: Its actually about privacy. Unless they could prove to TSI / the Court that their evidence was actually valid and not-hearsay, they shouldn't even be allowed 1000 ft near anyone's private information.

Right but I don't think that's the way the legal system works... you have to identify the defendants first before you can bring a lawsuit against them. The only way to do that it is to get a court order to reveal who they are.

Something similar would be if you were committing mail fraud by using a Canada Post PO BOX.. Canada Post would not be expected to go to court on your behalf... Canada Post would get a court order to reveal the owner of the PO Box, and you would then get contacted by the crown.

Yes you are right, but in the case of the post office box, they can get pictures of you using the box, they can get pictures of you signing up for the box. This is all evidence that would have to be gathered prior to going to court. IE There would be an actual investigation, with evidence gathered by means that would have to be explained in court by a professional organization that does this everyday and have done this type of investigation for decades, not some fly by night organization that may or may not still be here by the time this case makes it to court.

Here, they having nothing. They have an IP that is registered to an account with no proof of who is actually using that account. An IP doesn't even come close to meeting the burden of proof in any court, even civil. Before any ISP willingly hands over account information, court order or not, the party requesting the information needs to show proof that the account holder is the one committing the alleged offenses.

If the account holder is the sole occupant of a residence and they can prove this, then sure, they have a case. However, if the account holder has a family or is sharing a residence with more than one other person, the requestor would have to prove that the account holder is, more likely than not (burden of proof in civil court), the one who committed the offense. If they don't provide this proof to the court or the ISP and the ISP hands over this information, they are breaking the privacy law and are making themselves liable for damages to the account holder.

I can tell you one thing, if my ISP turned over my personal account information or account logs without this burden being met, not only would I file complaints with all of the appropriate government agencies (both federal and provincial) but also would not only file suit against the requestor for deflamation but also my ISP for breach of privacy.

Simply put, even with a court order, the ISP still has a responsibility to uphold the privacy act to the best of their ability and scrutinize any request for private information of their customers. A court order does not absolve them of this responsibility and they have more than a duty, they are legally bound to challenge any request that does not meet the burden as per PIPEDA, Bill C-11 and any provincial or federal legislation. I don't think the ISP's here have thought of the situation from this side of the equation. Those 2000 IP's could bring Teksavvy a world of hurt if they decide to turn this back around on them (which is exactly what I would do).