O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

reply to hm

Re: Voltage Versus Teksavvy, Round 2 Continued

The CIPPIC pdf is pretty much uneventful. But it is what it is.

Any other news on this?

Been a couple of weeks since the judge told voltage to give Teksavvy a new draft to send to the identified IP's.

Has teksavvy received this draft yet? Anyone have a copy to post (scrub the meta-data pls).

Any other news at all?

When do they all meet again?

Is there another court date?

What's next?

Did Voltage skip town w/o paying? If so, can teksavvy go to court and make a move to seize any Voltage assets in Canada to recoup costs? Would and should Teksavvy do this if Voltage did skip town to avoid paying?

Late yesterday Judge released reasons for adjournment..

we just posted them on our site:

»www.teksavvy.com/en/why-teksavvy···ormation
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

Voltage have not bothered to send a "STOP SHARING" message yet, no. Which is very strange, because it is a simple thing to do and it clearly hurts them not doing it.

Indeed. I'm hoping this is an indication that they have given up on the whole thing.

reply to resa1983
The vulture's lawyers could be playing a game here as well...

reply to Fresh Meat

reply to JohnDohnut

Yeah i'm sure there are lots of dynamic IP users there. But, static IP's are big with teksavvys customers it would appear. At least it used to be, and they fought for this at the CRTC and people pay extra for it.

And since we really don't know all the details, who is to say that they haven't been selecting or observing certain IP's for 3 months (prior) before they gave their current list to TSI?

I know if I was the vulture I would make a list of 5000 IP's on day one. 30-days later I would make another list of 5000 IP's. and another 30 days after another list of 5000 IP's. I would then cut it down to repeating IP's since after 90 days we could more or less consider the IP's static (even after a couple of weeks the odds are good).

But yeah, I'm sure there were lots of dynamic one in there.

What is happening is one of the dangers of having a static IP. Thus the reason why I stated when this first hit the fan that I would ask for a new static ip (on privacy grounds), or drop the service of paying for a static IP then renew it a month later to get a different one.

I think everyone who takes newsgroups or voip is static. Plus those who just want a static and pay extra. And I do believe mlppp uses static (not sure) but it used to be part of the package.

Would love to get my hands on the IP's to check them all out. I would also pass them all through proxycap (or similar) to check for any opens.

reply to resa1983
The more I think about it the more I think the 1000 IP's that were dropped from the "lawlsuit" were the dynamic IP's. The balance are either cable or static. with some dynamic maybe.

Which reminds me (I have dynamic), I haven't reset my modem the past 2 months and make another fake MAC to get a diff IP. I will do this within a week. I tend to do this every few months (as mods with IP access will know). Otherwise videotron will keep you on the same IP for almost a year.

That is not good, privacy wise. And people should know this.

That leaves a big hole no matter what log retentions are, even if log retention was 1 day. You have voip or other with the likes of teksavvy and it's a privacy problem with these type trolling lawsuits since they give you a static. I do believe it's part of the E-911 solution with TSI, which makes sense on one hand and a problem on the other hand. Marc would have to detail the specifics of this.

But a static = problem.

From a privacy standpoint, the only way I can see around this would be if Teksavvy could somehow separate voip from net and tunnel only net via a proxy to give a diff IP, while voip gives true IP.

Anyone on the same page following me? Or am I wrong?

Years ago there was a Montreal company who did this, their current name is/was Radial Point (Bell bought them). Prior to that they had a diff name and I don't recall it. U.S. FBI and CIA came down on them. Was on the front page of the Montreal gazette at the time. Late 90's. Since they couldn't trace people.

But that is the only way to prevent this. Similar to Acanac's online PC, but this went though like 12 PC's with diff IP's.

In other-words, proxy-chaining, which is better than the regular vpn.

Today, people could buy this type of service, or create their own like I do with hacked PC's as I detailed in the teksavvy forum. But a bought service like this.. hmm... I only know of one.. JonDo, »anonymous-proxy-servers.net/

The free service will chain you through 2 proxy's. The paid service through a few all in different jurisdictions. Thus diff priv laws and retention laws depending on the country of the chain in your proxy.

anyhow.... I'm sure with the group of people in this forum only a handful are following.

But if TSI would come out with this type of service, or even become a service operator for the likes of JonDo (and they could since they sit on BW and IP's), I would buy them.

Privacy sells.

Anyhow....

Marc, out of the 1000 IP's, how many of those are static?

Actually, there were errors found on Dec 18, 42 people who had been contacted in error, and 92 who hadn't been contacted due to mistakes in converting IP to subscriber.

I would assume if there were mistakes like that, those would be dynamic IPs.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

reply to resa1983

So back to the question posed further up...

Now that both Voltage and CIPPIC replied, is there supposed to be a date issued now where the Judge will decide to allow or disallow the intervention by CIPPIC? If so, any info on when the Judge will sit down to decide this?

What goes on now? When?

Any info at all?