said by Count Hogula$:
said by XKnightHawkX:
It says her account was froze over billing disput not that she canceled it. so she still has the arguement. AT least I think I am reading it that way. she has a billing diput not a canceled account.
That's not true.
"Carter said she agreed to pay half, an arrangement the company initially accepted but later rejected. At that point, she terminated the account and signed up with an alternate provider, Carter said".
She terminated the account.
"The old account, however, was kept open under suspension without her knowledge, she said, and e-mail continued to pile up. Carter eventually was able to retrieve 24 e-mail messages some three and a half weeks after the cancellation..."
AFTER the cancellation she has no expectation of using the account SHE had never paid for in the first place. She was getting the service for free by accident and when asked to pay for the service she used she refused.
She is a thief and a liar.
Dog or Pig or whatever you are, you should read the facts before you form an opinion on something; it makes you sound ignorant.
Here are the alleged facts, which I have from the Commissioner's findings in the privacy complaint »
www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/ ··· 28_e.asp (which Carter alleges also contains errors), and from conversations with Carter herself. News stories are not reliable sources for discussions of this nature.
Carter signs up as subscriber with ISP A. ISP A's ToS does not describe policy on account suspensions.
ISP A is subsequently purchased by ISP B. In the transition, ISP B screws up the accounting system for ISP A's subscribers and subscribers are not billed for many months.
ISP B subsequently bills Carter a couple of hundred in back payments. Carter claims inconvenience and asks for consideration: offers to pay half. Representative of ISP B agrees, but then another ISP B representative reneges. Carter refuses to pay full amount and account is suspended.
Carter requests that ISP B reverse suspension or she will cancel account. Informs representative that she will deem account cancelled if suspension not reversed within N days. Suspension not reversed, Carter deems account cancelled and informs her address list, but foreseeably does not inform everyone with whom she has ever had contact.
Meanwhile, ISP B does not deem account cancelled, merely suspended, and continues to accept email into account, which it intends to use as leverage for payment (as it turns out this is a common industry practice - a practice which Canada's largest ISP has recently stopped as a result of the findings in the privacy complaint).
Carter finally figures out what is going on and complains to ISP B. ISP B cancels account and eventually hands over collected email after Carter takes complaint to corporate HQ in the U.S..
Carter files complaint with Privacy Commissioner, who finds that ISP B contravened federal private-sector privacy legislation on grounds that policy did not allow subscriber to make informed consent with regards to collection and use of personal information (email and email address).
Carter sues ISP B for damages related to policy of leveraging email.
While it is true the ISP is a private entity, that is largely irrelevant. Many essential services, private and public, are regulated: in fact, most are. It may well be that Carter does not have a reasonable expectation of service after she deemed the account cancelled, but I think she also had some expectation that the ISP would not continue to collect her email for purposes for which she had never given consent.
Further, we are becoming increasingly dependent on electronic communications and this logically requires that we develop a certain standard of care around the treatment of electronic mail, just as we have done for the treatment of regular mail. It is an offence to delay or refuse transmission of mail for the purpose of collecting a toll or other charge under the Canada Post Corporation Act. The question is: does this also apply, by statute or otherwise, to email?
Whether or not you agree this is a sympathetic fact situation or whether or not there are 'bad actors' out there who will try and take advantage of ISPs, this issue does need to be addressed (pardon the pun). The current situation is not very equitable.
We stand to learn a great deal more about this if we ask intelligent questions, instead of immaturely calling people names and painting everything either black or white.
I plan on posting the pleadings in the suit on »
www.lexinformatica.org, which will provide us with fodder for thought and discussion.
Jason
