dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Sonic CEO Dane Jasper Still Fighting User Data Retention Laws
The Telecom Sector Needs More Executives Like Dane Jasper
by Karl Bode 08:54AM Monday Jun 25 2012 Tipped by cabana See Profile
For much of the last decade the U.S. government has been trying to force data retention requirements on ISPs, most frequently under the banner of fighting child pornography. New bills seem to pop up every year or so, though privacy advocates have traditionally beaten such efforts back. Mandatory ISP data retention was something you'll recall was a priority for the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department, and (much like warrantless wiretapping) is now being championed by the Obama Administration Justice Department.

While law enforcement and many ISPs have supported such a puch, Dane Jasper, CEO of independent ISP Sonic.net, last summer blogged that his company is strictly opposed to such data retention practices because they create an "attractive nuisance" by creating privacy and security concerns for users. Forbes is running an interesting piece about how Jasper is still fighting data retention pushes, and how he's been angered by BitTorrent extortion settlement efforts against what are often innocent users::
quote:
An individual would download a movie, using bittorrent, and infringe copyright. And that might be our customer, like Bob Smith who owns a Sonic.net account, or it might be their spouse, or it might be their child. Or it might be one of his three roommates in a loft in San Francisco, who Bob is not responsible for, and who rent out their loft on AirBnB and have couch surfers and buddies from college and so on and open Wifi.

When lawyers asked us for these users’ information, some of our customers I spoke with said “Oh yeah, crap, they caught me,” and were willing to admit they engaged in piracy and pay a settlement. But in other cases, it turned out the roommate did it, or no one would admit to doing it. But they would pay the settlement anyway. Because no one wants to be named in the public record in a case from So-And-So Productions vs. 1,600 names including Bob Smith for downloading a film called “Don’t Tell My Wife $@!% The Babysitter.”
While Comcast and Verizon have recently been standing up to similar data requests from e-book or porn publishers, they've been cooperating with other efforts in their industry (film/television). Meanwhile, Jasper's not just standing up against the danger of data retention and BitTorrent mass lawsuits, he's fought everything from covert user clickstream sales to snoopvertising to annoying domain redirection ads. Jasper is the kind of telecom executive that deserves huge kudos for standing up for users -- when most of his contemporaries in this industry are busy disregarding consumer welfare at every opportunity to make a few extra bucks.

view:
topics flat nest 

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

You own the link; you pay the fine

quote:
An individual would download a movie, using bittorrent, and infringe copyright. And that might be our customer, like Bob Smith who owns a Sonic.net account, or it might be their spouse, or it might be their child. Or it might be one of his three roommates in a loft in San Francisco, who Bob is not responsible for, and who rent out their loft on AirBnB and have couch surfers and buddies from college and so on and open Wifi.
If you own the link, it is your responsibility for what happens on it. And Open Wifi is not an option that is acceptable as an excuse. Jasper's little storyline is just more "entitlement" excuses.

In a civil lawsuit, the rules of criminal procedures don't apply. There doesn't have to be a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Alex J

@apexcovantage.com

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

If you own the link, it is your responsibility for what happens on it. And Open Wifi is not an option that is acceptable as an excuse. Jasper's little storyline is just more "entitlement" excuses.

Your opinions on this website are perpetually ridiculous and an embarrassment to the community. Guilt-by-IP address remains absurdly unreliable, and these automated settlement rackets are criminal. Seeing ISPs starting to stand up to this kind of nonsense has been incredibly refreshing.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by Alex J :

Your opinions on this website are an embarrassment to the community.

And what community is that? The community of copyright infringers who think nothing should be paid for and that think they can take what they want, just because they want it?

Alex J

@speakeasy.net

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

A community of people who care about consumer rights and are smart enough to see the problem with wholesale scorched earth legal assaults and the assumption of guilt-by-IP address.

Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

1 recommendation

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

Oh yes, you are always innocent. People must prove your guilt. You are always such victims of people stealing your IPs to download illegal crap

Why don't you own up to something in your lives?
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
Do you think Mitt ever questioned whether he should get what he wanted? Based on the "preponderance of evidence" his campaign should sue you for misusing his image and sullying his name.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by Wilsdom:

misusing his image and sullying his name.

It is free campaign advertising, which he encourages from his website.

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by FFH:

said by Wilsdom:

misusing his image and sullying his name.

It is free campaign advertising, which he encourages from his website.

Good Romney avatar. Looks like he has a Hitler mustache. Fits perfectly.

S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
well since we're on the theme of guilt by association, then we can now hold you responsible (through your advocacy via avatar) for Obamacare...right?...I mean after all, its was Arbys Oven Mitt Romney that implemented Obamacare Version #1 in Mass.. And it's also you who was responsible for leaving a dog on the roof for a trip to Canada, right?
Why can't you see the wholesale assault that corporations are perpetrating on the citizens through our legislature for their own financial gain?...and the f***ing poster child for that approach is that douchebag that you have an avatar of!
--
"Thanks for the dance... and cut yourself a slice'a throat! "
- Curly (HOI POLLOI, 1935)

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by S_engineer:

well since we're on the theme of guilt by association, then we can now hold you responsible (through your advocacy via avatar) for Obamacare...right?...I mean after all, its was Arbys Oven Mitt Romney that implemented Obamacare Version #1 in Mass.. And it's also you who was responsible for leaving a dog on the roof for a trip to Canada, right?
Why can't you see the wholesale assault that corporations are perpetrating on the citizens through our legislature for their own financial gain?...and the f***ing poster child for that approach is that douchebag that you have an avatar of!

You won't get a reasonable response from TKJunkMail / Romney 2012 / whatever he's calling himself this week.

Why can't you see the wholesale assault that corporations are perpetrating on the citizens through our legislature for their own financial gain?

TKJunkMail / Romney 2012 / whatever he's calling himself this week sees it perfectly. It's his financial gain as well.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
I thought we were a bunch of people who like technology and come here for good info and helping other people. Seems that isn't the case anymore.
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

Well, there are still people like that. Here and elsewhere.

There just happen to be others who think that everyone who doesn't agree 100% with them on everything makes them wrong.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by Camaro:

I thought we were a bunch of people who like technology and come here for good info and helping other people. Seems that isn't the case anymore.

Liking technology and helping people doesn't mean helping them steal things.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by FFH:

Liking technology and helping people doesn't mean helping them steal things.

Damn man are you ever in a good mood ?

I didn't bring up anything copyright related arguments so I am leaving that one alone.

I think we need to go back to commenting back on the story and not have a flaming war because no one is right 100% all the time.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
said by FFH:

Liking technology and helping people doesn't mean helping them steal things.

..because everyone is guilty until proven innocent, right? Or is it whoever has the most cash for their lawyers?

I'm getting really sick of this sh*t.
geonap
lolatidiots

join:2005-12-14
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
i bet if a corporation got busted, you wouldn't care as much as people getting busted.

people like you give the benefit of the doubt to businesses and not people.

dont forget, your guy supports businesses that ruin our drinking water and they dont care who dies from it, as long as they make a buck, so STFU.

BusyAnon

@rr.com
"Intellectual Property" is essentially "communism", and there's not a few IP attorneys who are willing to admit and even champion that point, Kinsella being a key voice.

It is "communism" in the sense of State-regulated and protected capitalism. It does not protect the artists and programmers, it protects the corporate distributors, much like most "farm" laws do little (some, but not much) to help actual farmers but overwhelmingly help Big Corp Agri-Tech and the various middlemen who control the food supply in a manner Stalin never dreamed of doing.

Libertarians have criticized government-enforced patent protections for over 100 years, as an infringement on free market economics. The loudest blowhards for "free markets" and "free enterprise" utterly HATE freedom including economic freedom, and this has been the pattern for 100 years, maybe 200 years or longer if you read Albert Nock on Jefferson and the Constitution (Mises.org), or longer if you check out Kevin Carson on 15th - 16th Century Enclosure Laws and the "Poor Laws" that also crushed free labor and free entrepreneurial activity.

John "Competition is a Sin" Rockefeller -- that idea was not new to him either.

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

1 recommendation

Your opinions on this website are perpetually ridiculous and an embarrassment to the community.

I'd go so far to say they are an embarrassment to humanity.
sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
You do realize that a judge has ruled that an IP Address != A Person right?

quote:
An IP address is not a Social Security number or a fingerprint. It, in the words of Judge Gary Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.

Anyway since you think that the owner is solely responsible for their connection, what if someone broke into your WiFi and downloaded child porn or downloaded some copyrighted works that you were blamed for? I am sure you would be saying, "Well that wasn't me!!"

Besides owners of a connection should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what our legal system is based on, innocent until proven guilty. We don't blame ISP's when someone on their network downloads something copyrighted even though they own the pipes coming into your neighborhood. Why can't the same be true for someone who has several computers at home and a home LAN.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

said by sandman_1:

Anyway since you think that the owner is solely responsible for their connection, what if someone broke into your WiFi and downloaded child porn or downloaded some copyrighted works that you were blamed for? I am sure you would be saying, "Well that wasn't me!!"

Besides owners of a connection should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is what our legal system is based on, innocent until proven guilty. We don't blame ISP's when someone on their network downloads something copyrighted even though they own the pipes coming into your neighborhood. Why can't the same be true for someone who has several computers at home and a home LAN.

You, as many others do, keep confusing civil and criminal law. In the child porn example, the IP is only used to obtain a CRIMINAL search warrant. Where the police then search for proof of child porn access. The IP addr alone is not sufficient for even charging you with a crime. So owners of the connection are given the benefit of the doubt in CRIMINAL cases.

In CIVIL cases and in copyright law, it is NOT necessary to determine which person has used the IP addr to download copyrighted material. Only a preponderance of the evidence is needed, and the presumption is that the lessee of the internet connection is guilty unless THEY can prove otherwise.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

That's YOUR presumption, not a reasonable person's presumption! They would have to weigh the evidence in court and decide for themselves...
sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
I guess you don't realize that the case the judge was ruling on was civil so...

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by FFH:

In CIVIL cases and in copyright law, it is NOT necessary to determine which person has used the IP addr to download copyrighted material. Only a preponderance of the evidence is needed, and the presumption is that the lessee of the internet connection is guilty unless THEY can prove otherwise.

"Guilt" isn't even a consideration in civil cases, only responsibility for a tort.

The problem with the "mass subpoenas" sought by the MAFIAAs is that they don't intend to prove a tort, only to extort a settlement.

Would be interesting to consider the implications of a 'botted computer. Not a totally rare event. Is the owner of a hijacked automobile responsible for a tort if the hijacker causes property damage or bodily harm as a result of the hijacking? A 'botted computer is the analog to the 'jacked automobile.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
Do you think an ISP can accurately identify the exact time a customer assigned an IP address. In my case Comcast could not even identify the name of a customer's located at a physical address.

The problem occurred in the late 1980's when my mother was succumbing to cancer. She needed so much skilled nursing care that she had to be placed in a nursing home. I had a telephone line and Cable Television installed in her room. Comcast required that the service be placed in her name. Unfortunately about six weeks later she passed away. I cancelled service and returned the converter to the local Comcast office and received a receipt.

Now comes the bullshit. About three months later I received a demand letter from Comcast for several hundred dollars and return of the converter box. I contacted Comcast customer service and asked the reason for the demand letter. They asked for the account number on the letter, then the address. They asked me if I was Joan Smith. I said I was her son. The representative stated that Comcast wanted payment for service that had been ordered about one week after my mother passed away, in Joan Smiths name. My mother's name was not Joan Smith. Once I got the information I needed I advised the CSR that I in fact was not Joan Smiths son and that she had passed away before the dates stated, and I gave them my mothers real name. The CSR would not accept that the demand letter was in my mothers name and not in Joan Smiths name, the CSR demanded a copy of my receipt for the returned converter and my mothers death certificate. I filed a complaint with the city cable company authority. They got the matter straightened out real fast.

If you think a ISP can accurately identify the exact time a person was assigned an IP address when they cannot even identify the physical address a customer is located at you are having delusions.
biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

1 recommendation

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

Could you be more confusing please. Is your mom Joan Smith or not?
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Re: You own the link; you pay the fine

Joan Smith was not my mother, she occupied the same room in December that my mother occupied before she passed away in November. When Comcast could not track down Joan Smith, to bill her, I guess they thought they could bill my mother's estate.

I did not mention that after I filed my complaint with the city cable coordinator, I contacted the nursing home and confirmed that after my mother passed away, Joan Smith occupied the same room my mother did.

The point I was trying to make was that if an ISP cannot accurately tie the service dates to a the physical address of a customer, how can one expect them to accurately identify the time and date a customer was assigned a particular IP address.
jc100

join:2002-04-10
So let's extrapolate your argument further. Anyone with internet must be tech savvy or shouldn't enjoy the privilege. So if Bob Smith pays a company to plug in a wireless router, and the router isn't properly secured, Bob Smith should be sued? Here's another more plausible scenario.

Bob Smith has friends over and lets them use his wifi. Is Bob Smith suppose to make everyone sign an agreement not to use his internet to infringe upon copyright? That's not even taking into account that someone (neighbor, the local kid with some good hacking skills, etc) may piggyback his net.

If the person admits to the fact, then fine. Case closed. However, to sue the owner and then be unable to prove if the owner is guilty is nothing short of extortion. Unless you can without a doubt prove the individual has infringed, then you are basically shooting fish in a barrel hoping to catch someone.

I guess you just like big government, huh? Next up, listening to you rant why we need the government to keep us safe from terrorism and every civil liberty should go out the door.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
Nope. Disagree.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Wow

Someone who gives a big FU to any government or police on a fishing expedition is OK in my book.

It's funny in here how some champion to keep the government control out of the private sector but it should put aside to "protect the children" and of course the favorite "national security", please.

If this info is so valuable that they want then there should be no problem going through the proper channels to get a warrant.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Wow

said by Camaro:

.

If this info is so valuable that they want then there should be no problem going through the proper channels to get a warrant.

It is a subpoena & not a warrant. And they do go to court to get them. Subpoena's can be disputed as Comcast has proven with a successful court case to block them in certain cases.

Camaro
Question everything
Premium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: Wow

said by FFH:

Subpoena's can be disputed as Comcast has proven with a successful court case to block them in certain cases.

OK. But a observation over the last couple years it seems an awful lot of money and time has been wasted on frivolous and just plain dumb crap like this clogging up the judicial system when it's already in a pretty bad shape.

trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

1 recommendation

This rampant copyright infringement...

This rampant copyright infringement needs to stop. People need to realize that when you download the movie or song that you are taking money away from those who made that movie or song.

But... like others here, I have to agree that "guilt by IP" is bullshit. There could be any number of reasons why someone could end up getting hit for things like this. Like the article said, it could be a guest that is using your WiFi, or God forbid your machine got infected with something and your machine was used as a proxy of some sort.

Either way, this rampant copyright infringement needs to stop but "guilt by IP" is bullshit and these rapid-fire lawsuits that are targeting users also needs to stop. It's nothing but an abuse of the court system.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Galaxy Nexus LiquidSmooth by TeamLiquid

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: This rampant copyright infringement...

said by trparky:

This rampant copyright infringement needs to stop. People need to realize that when you download the movie or song that you are taking money away from those who made that movie or song.

Dang it; I had no idea I get get money by infringing copyrights. Show me how!

Infringers aren't "taking" any money, though, by infringing, they are denying the owner of the IP income derived from the IP.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

W.A.S.S.

We are so screwed if this continued erosion of personal rights to unwarranted seizure and/or disclosure of data continues. An internet address is NOT proof that a "person" committed a crime of copyright infringement. It's a set of numbers associated with an account.
A private citizen should NOT have to have the burden of proof of innocence fall on their shoulders. Last time I recall one is innocent until proven guilty in America.
There is a real and valid need for national security as well as protection of our children
There are a lot of cretins out there who would prey on them but much of the need for protection is generated by adults who do not parent their child with real-time involvement. Too may parents are just too self-absorbed in their own petty lives to be bothered by being a parent.
The need for national security is a valid need but it does not mean that anything and everything the Feds want to do is justified and legal by labeling it as "national security" and that we do not have rights that can be rescinded on a whim. If this is to be the norm for the United States, we are doomed to fail.
Paxio
Premium
join:2011-02-23
Santa Clara, CA
kudos:1

Go Dane!

We back Dane Jasper and Sonic.net in this fight. Go Dane!

Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

Obviously everybody here is so innocent...

All downloading linux isos, and obviously too computer illiterate to protect their wifi from others who download illegal crap. Look at how innocent they all are.

XANAVirus
Premium
join:2012-03-03
Lavalette, WV
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Comcast

Re: Obviously everybody here is so innocent...

You are not innocent either.
You are not some champion of goodness and your word should be taken with a grain of salt.

You are incorrect in claiming that protecting your WiFi from strangers is a good action.
This is in fact evil, as you are no longer working towards the common good and are shutting out your connection for others' benefit.

Just because someone, anyone, may use your Internet connection for an evil purpose does not mean that you should stop providing that connection for the public benefit.

By stopping from providing your Internet connection for others' benefit, you are placing everyone in the same Evil column (since the people who piggyback on your connection are evil).

You are truly the monster in the mirror if you think that no longer providing your connection for the public good just because there are a few bad apples is a good thing.

Astounded

@scansafe.net

God Bless the Retarded

Arrg, the Pirates are taking the world down. The MPAA is crumbling. The artists are starving. WTF!! Perspective people! So, because a pirate stole a song, movie, app or whatever, you're totally cool w/ ISP's keeping logs (longer than they do now) on you as you walk down the street. Keep it up ron mo's. Before too long they'll be slapping RFID's on our asses to fight the ever looming child porn epidemic.

•••

CSRWRK

@cvgs.net

Yea......

Mr. Romney2012 is in alliance with a guy that apparently loves grits, thinks trees can be just the right height, says corporations are actually people, and can't get his campaign staff to spell America right (amercia really). So im not listening to anything that guy says. So even though what he says about our judical system regarding civil cases may be technically correct, any sound and rational human being should be able to understand that guilt by IP is bullcrap and a bullying tatic used by the MPAA/RIAA to unsucessfully stop piracy and protect current revenue ventures for the entertainment industry, I mean is it really fair to tell someone that they need to pay a settelment for pirating the lastest blockbuster movie when someone like me with 50 mins of google seach can hack their poor network security and get whatever I want guilt free, and even if that makes someone like me a butthole it will be the innocent consumer paying the price because it was their IP.