Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sued For Giving Customer Info to RIAA
maczealot writes "The first legal missile has been fired at ISP collaboration. Comcast, the top U.S. cable TV network operator, is being sued by a Seattle-area woman for disclosing her name and contact information, court records showed Thursday." From the article: "...no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party..."
Well, here in Canada, all corporations have a legal obligation to keep customer's information private, unless you say that you are fine with them sharing your information for various purposes, or if they have a clause in the TOS.
Unless Comcast has already changed their Terms of Service, I fear that this may have been lost already, as it states under "Violation of Acceptable Use Policy":
"This cooperation may include Comcast providing available personally identifiable information about you to law enforcement or system administrators, including, but not limited to, username, subscriber name, and other account information."
Well, car rental companies kept writing into their service agreements the right to track you via GPS and fine you for speeding, but courts have repeatedly ruled against the rental companies. You can't enforce an unconscionable contract.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Violation of contract:
http://comcast.net/privacy/#disclosure
We make every reasonable effort to protect subscriber privacy as described in this Policy. Nevertheless, we may be required by law to disclose personally identifiable information about a subscriber without his or her consent and without notice in order to comply with a valid legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or search warrant.
She's complaining they didn't notify her or ask for her permission, AND they did not have a court order.
You expressly authorize Comcast and its suppliers to cooperate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected legal violations, and (ii) and system administrators at other Internet service providers or other network or computing facilities in order to enforce this Policy. This cooperation may include Comcast providing available personally identifiable information about you to law enforcement or system administrators, including, but not limited to, username, subscriber name, and other account information.
Sounds like the subscriber doesn't have a chance, once the copyright cops get involved.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
You can, and in fact companies do this all the time. I've had it done to me on several occasions. But the collection agencies are all bark and no bite (unless, of course, they've really got a solid claim against you, that's a different story.) All you have to do is just send the collection agency a nice certified letter back demanding all of their detailed records showing how they have a valid claim against you within 30 days so that you can begin your lawsuit against them, and they back right off. More info from the FTC
Just so you know, any publicly facing DNS server can be used for this purpose, and in fact its probably a good thing to have one as a tertiary server, so if all of comcast's stuff goes down, you are still functioning.
Cheers.
The more you know, the less you understand.
I called the Comcast service department (1-800-Comcast) and ask about this story. They have denied ever hearing about it, but they did mention I could be put on a non disclose list (which I then added myself to). They are also sending me their contract and policy concerning disclosing my personal information to any outside 3rd parties. Lets all call and crack the whip!
Directly from their website:
" Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)). All revised copies of the Policy are effective immediately upon posting. Accordingly, customers and users of the Comcast High-Speed Internet Service should regularly visit our web site and review this Policy to ensure that their activities conform to the most recent version. In the event of a conflict between any subscriber or customer agreement and this Policy, the terms of this Policy will govern. Questions regarding this Policy and complaints of violations of it by Comcast customers and users can be directed to http://online.comcast.net/contactus/ "
And this...
"Copyright Infringement Comcast is committed to complying with U.S. copyright and related laws, and requires all customers and users of the Service to comply with these laws. Accordingly, you may not store any material or content on, or disseminate any material or content over, the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law. Owners of copyrighted works who believe that their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed may take advantage of certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the "DMCA") to report alleged infringements. It is Comcast's policy in accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws to reserve the right to terminate the Service provided to any customer or user who is either found to infringe third party copyright or other intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers, or who Comcast believes in its sole discretion is infringing these rights. Comcast may terminate the Service at any time with or without notice for any affected customer or user. Copyright owners may report alleged infringements of their works that are stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features by sending Comcast's authorized agent a notification of claimed infringement that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA. Upon Comcast's receipt of a satisfactory notice of claimed infringement for these works, Comcast will respond expeditiously to either directly or indirectly (i) remove the allegedly infringing work(s) stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features or (ii) disable access to the work(s). Comcast will also notify the affected customer or user of the Service of the removal or disabling of access to the work(s). If the affected customer or user believes in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then that person may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the person who sent the original notification of claimed infringement and will follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification. In all events, you expressly agree that Comcast will not be a party to any disputes or lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringement."
However, nowhere does it say that they may give away your personal information. It just says that they can shut off your service. You can read the entire TOS here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Except that the RIAA didn't contact the authorities, they contacted their Dept Collection Agency to EXTORT money from the accused. It is not the the ??AA's interest to put this case in criminal court. If they do and lose then they have established a precident which must be overcome on every trial after that one. Instead they threaten to sue you if you don't pay up. The difference is that in criminal court you get some level of councel for free. In Civil Court you are granted no such plesantries. It matters not if you are a pirate, you lose money either way.
/. population is so pro-copyright infringement when it comes to media, but god-forbid someone infringes on GPL and all hell breaks loose.
Quite frankly, I don't understand why general
It has nothing to do with infringement, the market does not want to bear the outragous prices that the Record Industry wishes to maintain. And as is quite obvious it does not have to.
I propose to write an email, fax or call to EFF first to ask them if they are willing to help the lady + create a found where we can donate. If the EFF is associated with the project, the people will probably be more willing to contribute. I'll be the first the give something. I have already started to write my letter.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
Phone: +1 415 436 9333
Fax: +1 415 436 9993
information@eff.org
EFF Contact
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Because the agencies are all about volume. They buy lots of debts at steep discounts. They don't care all that much if the debts are valid or not, they just find the vulnerable people they can harrass and extort money out of them. Anybody who shows any kind of backbone gets quickly removed from the active collection pile. Too much work for likely little return. But if they're ignorant enough not to demand their full rights, their credit report gets crapped on as they get dropped.
Here's a nice place to ask their customer rep about your privacy: (Link to their onlinechat support)
"...The RIAA referred all of the Drexel cases to the Settlement Support Center, a group of lawyers who specialize in settling."
"...recieved calls from the "RIAA Settlement Support Center". A disgusting attempt at making themselves sound like the nice-guys they are known to not be."
From that FTC site:
Debt collectors also may not state that:
* you will be arrested if you do not pay your debt;
* they will seize, garnish, attach, or sell your property or wages, unless the collection agency or creditor intends to do so, and it is legal to do so; or
* actions, such as a lawsuit, will be taken against you, when such action legally may not be taken, or when they do not intend to take such action.
After reading TFA, it seems like they violated that last point. Wonder how they got away with that.
When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle. It makes the neighbor's dog run to the end of his chain and gag himself.
Debt collection agencies typically outright buy someone else's contract at a discount.
Not here. Any collection agencies that I have dealt with (and I used to deal with several in a "former life") worked on a percentage of 1/3 to 1/2 of the amount collected. The debtor paid the full amount to the collection agency and the collection agency then forwards between 50% and 66% of that amount to the client. The difference in their commission comes from a combination of volume and amounts.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I found out a collection agency wanted $5k from me. First I knew was when it turned up on my credit report. In two years, they had made no attempt to contact me at the addresses shown to be active on said credit report. I had to waste my time and money writing, printing and mailing documents telling them to go away because the alleged debt was incurred in a city I'd never been to, on behalf of a company who should have known that I was actually a customer of theirs on the other side of the country the whole time.
If you try to contact the collection agency or credit rating agency, they'll try to make you jump through all kinds of hoops. The best thing is to go straight to the FTC and download their template for an affidavit, write one up including all the relevant proof, send it in via certified mail, then just reply to every subsequent letter with "Read the affidavit and stop harassing me" until they get the hint.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yes, but that course of action doesnt negate the ability of the initiator (in this case the RIAA) from suing you. You can get the debt agency off your back by doing that, but you will probably just find yourself being served a court summons.
This is perfectly allowed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805 Part C which handles ceasing of communication allows for three exemptions :
(1) to advise the consumer that the debt collector's further efforts are being terminated;
(2) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or
(3) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.
Under subsections 2 and 3 a specified remedy can be sueing you to recover the debt. In other words, that letter you link to is not a 'get out of jail free' card.
This probably won't be seen by anyone but...
This is a complete misstatment of the law. For a definition of "prior art," please see 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
If person A recieves a patent, person A cannot be sued by person B because person B holds "prior art." Rather, person B can attempt to have the patent held by person A held invalid through a declaratory judgment.
-BB
BSD license does not require anything of the code put under it.
Exactly. Since yours is more restrictive and does, your code can't be incorporated into a BSD-licensed project.
I just wanted to remind everyone that passing one's bill onto a debt collection agency is often tantamount to immediate punishment. Once the agency gets an unpaid bill, they often register the uncollected bill with the credit agencies. Once that happens, all sorts of strange things start happening -- your APRs on the credit cards go up, loans become more difficult to get, etc'.
This "negative information" having to do with your debt being assigned to an agency *stays* even after you had paid your bill. IN fact, it takes quite a bit of work to have them remove it for you. So even if the RIAA eventually turns out to have made a mistake, or the debt agency turns out to be wrong, simply starting the process corresponds to immediate punishment.
According to the article, in this occurence "no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party"
The "collection agency" is called Settlement Support Center. I thought that was an unusual name and wondered if it is a company set up for the RIAA lawsuits. I guess it is and it has a bunch of lawyers which can pursue lawsuits if someone doesn't pay.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
You forgot the third option, that she was using a system like bittorrent where her activity in downloading the file was publically broadcast, and could easily be tracked using the tracker (well, what else would you call it? ;) without approving or otherwise participating in the transfer, or tapping her wires or anything.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
They might even be able to get away with not having a subpoena by that clause if some law enforcement agency asked them directly, but the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency, and without a court order they don't have the authority of one either.
If any clause came into affect it's the second one, but that's not a particularly good defense in this case as, though you can stretch it almost infinitely far, if you stretch it too far a court is likely to declare it invalid. It's even probable(though IANAL)that for a system administrator to reveal information obtained this way without involving some sort of law enforcement agency and a warrant might be illegal, or at least a violation of the non disclosure portions of their employment contract.
no, dead would do: it's much easier to sue an estate: they tend not to defend themselves so well.
copyright © 2005 Flamsmsmark the ravings of a melancholly i
This is the way it works, so go ahead and start making plans to leave. I am. I figure my retirement will stretch further in another country anyway. Somewhere like Belize. I can get a coastal villa for $50K and a full time maid and cook for $40 a month. I can hire a full time bartender who will make me drinks with little umbrellas in them for $25 a month. But I digress.
A man is arrested for drunk driving. He is booked and released on bond. Not having a ride home, at his request the police call his friend Joe, they explain the situation, and ask that he come get his friend. At 2am Joe gets out of bed, gets dressed and goes to pick up his friend. Rather than to take him home, at his friends request, Joe takes him back to his car. He drops him off and then goes home and back to bed. His friend gets back in his car, still under the influence, takes off and this time kills someone in a collision. Later that morning Joe is woken up by the police and arrested for vehicular manslaughter. He contributed by taking his friend to his car rather than home making him just as guilty. It's that law in where everybody involved is guilty of murder even if they didn't pull the trigger.
A mother has a 19 year old daughter living with her. The daughter has friends over and they're listening to music. It turns out they also had alcohol. The mother did not buy the alcohol, she didn't even know they had any. The mother goes upstairs to bed. Later, the friends leave, under the influence, and kill someone in an auto accident. The mother is arrested for vehicular manslaughter. Again, the contributory guilt. The mother asleep in bed is "just as guilty" as the drunk driver. The mother contributed by negligence not stopping them from drinking even though she didn't know they were.
In both these cases these "victims" of our laws were found innocent by a jury. But that's the point. The laws already exist in the U.S. to be arrested and considered guilty for anything, whether you did the crime of not. Property can be seized without trial in direct conflict with our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The only thing standing between you and prison are not the protections afforded by the Constitution or even common sense, it's 12 people in a jury box.
Ever do laundry and pour the bleach in without measuring? You're a felon. It is against federal law to use that product inconstant with it's product labeling. A felony punishable by many years in prison.
It's not laws that keep me free and when socialites values change with the wind, so does my freedoms from an oppressive government. The laws in the United States are not dissimilar to those in 1930's Germany. Our SS and take you from your home, imprison you without charges, without access to legal counsel, hold secret trials, convict and punish you in secret. All the time your family is filling out missing person's reports and stapling posters to telephone polls with your picture.
Our freedoms do not exist on paper. They only exist in the minds or our citizens.
Go ahead and plan on leaving if that's how you feel. But I'd ask that you stay only because I'd want you on my jury if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be caught up in one of our police squad raids. You and people like you are the only reason I'm free, not because of any law. Stay just long enough for me to build my retirement to Belize. At least there I can avoid trial with a payment to a judge that's half the cost of an attorney defending me here.