Check out the Dell Store on CNET
Broadband: I Found Big Brother and His Name Is COMCAST
Comcast Is Supposed To Be Just a Service Provider
by benoddo - 4/29/05 3:23 PM In reply to: who's the criminal? by starsultanComcast is not complicit in the "criminal" activity. They are providing a service just like the Post Office or the phone companies. Has a phone company ever been prosecuted for the activities of criminals who may have conspired to commit or even committed crimes on the phone? Was the Post Office ever convicted in aiding and abetting the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski? The post office may have assisted in his capture, but it wasn't the post office that turned him in.
The RIAA is only using the fact that the technology used in this medium affords those who wish to do so, easily track and exploit the information that travels thoughout the internet. Just because Comcast and the RIAA have the ability "spy" on your internet activity, does not give them the right to do so. We must insure that the same right to privacy we have with the phone and the post office extends to the internet. Or else we as a freedom loving people should have no part of it.
The RIAA is only looking for an easy, cheap and unethical method of stuffing their pockets at the expense of everyone's right to privacy.
Who's the criminal
by kwkid - 4/30/05 9:06 PM In reply to: who's the criminal? by starsultanNow this is just plain silly. By your analogy, a homeowner could sue Ford Motor Co. because it made the car that got the burgalar to the house he just broke into.
Privacy issues abound
by RSBaxter - 4/29/05 4:12 AM In reply to: I Found Big Brother and His Name Is COMCAST by benoddoI do believe that the reason the write wrote this to all of us is really to remind us that big companies do not hold your information as a customer in privacy.
If you went ahead and read the article, that states that Comcast 'wasn't directed by a court' to divulge that particular person's name and address to another company/entity.
The fact that teenagers download things from the internet is not fiction but fact. They grew up in this generation of freely available music and other items. The internet is still largely an untamed continent so to speak, sort of like the wild wild west of the 1850's. Is it right that this is going on? I think that is open to great debate, but the issue is a company who is receiving money from you and then divulging information about you that they shouldn't perhaps.
Say you watched XXX movies on your cable company's digital ordering service. A company like a newspaper or magazine requested that the cable company provides a list of all names and how many times the person watched XXX movies? And then published this list on some website or newspaper or other means of using the data? Is this unethical.. Or is it something else?
Comcast was fully within their rights to do what they did...
by DarkPhalanx - 4/29/05 5:04 AM In reply to: I Found Big Brother and His Name Is COMCAST by benoddoI understand the individual's feelings of betrayal, but remember something very important. You are agreeing to Terms and Conditions when you sign a contract (register for your ISP service) and you should know right from the start that you cannot commit any "illegal" (I think the RIAA lawsuits are frivolous and garbage, but that's just my opinion........lol) acts and not have to answer to anyone under the guise of "your privacy". What I'd suggest to all is to read all the fine print on the back of their monthly bill, and see exactly what rights you have, and not get upset when something like this happens.
No, Comcast was wrong!
by BobLap - 4/29/05 5:45 AM In reply to: Comcast was fully within their rights to do what they did... by DarkPhalanxWhether the user was doing something illegal or not, Comcast does not have the right to turn over private information! If they feel the user was doing something illegal they have the right to close down that users service. But oh, they'd lose the subscribers fee.
Comcast should err on the side of their subscribers, not just hand personal info over to anybody who asks.
Like someone stated in another answer, what's to keep Comcast from releasing more damaging info about their users??
Rights? yes, but...
by germancorredorp - 4/29/05 5:51 AM In reply to: Comcast was fully within their rights to do what they did... by DarkPhalanxI agree that Comcast had all the right to do what they did, but for the users, it's not pleasant at all. In another reply, someone mentioned about a cable company displaying all your information to anyone who asks for it. I personally think that Comcast should not have given out the information, unless a court order told them to. It's not an issue of rights or not, is an issue of Comcast betraying their customers.
Please show me...
by techuser - 4/29/05 5:58 AM In reply to: Rights? yes, but... by germancorredorpDark Phalanx,
Do you have some valuable, undisclosed information that can help clarify things? If so, please show us the supporting evidence for your remark, "I agree that Comcast had all the right to do what they did..." I haven't yet seen any evidence in this topic to support it. Until such evidence comes to light, you're all just guessing or wishing.
Misunderstood
by germancorredorp - 4/29/05 6:03 AM In reply to: Please show me... by techuserOk, maybe I did nto make myself clear, by choosing the wrong words, what I meant to say is that I don't know for sure whether the compnay had the right or not to do what they did, but evene if they did had the right to do it, they souldnīt have done it. They never should betray their customers. Period.
Re:Please Show me...
by DarkPhalanx - 4/29/05 8:15 AM In reply to: Please show me... by techuserWe consider the personally identifiable information contained in our business records to be confidential. We may sometimes disclose personally identifiable information about you to our affiliates or to others who work for us. We may also disclose personally identifiable information about you to service providers and vendors, and to others who provide products and services to us. For example, when you use certain functions on this website you may notice that the website actually collecting or processing the information may be other than a Comcast website. We may be required by law or legal process to disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to lawyers and parties in connection with litigation and to law enforcement personnel. For example, we may be required by law to disclose personally identifiable information about you without your consent and without notice in order to comply with a valid legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or search warrant.
That should explain things pretty clear as to what your rights are when you sign up to use an ISP's service. (Typical contract wording).
Re:Re: Please Show me...
by benoddo - 4/29/05 10:19 AM In reply to: Re:Please Show me... by DarkPhalanxQuote:
"We may be required by law or legal process to disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to lawyers and parties in connection with litigation and to law enforcement personnel."
End Quote:
Firstly the RIAA is NOT a law enforcement agency and does not have the right to demand personally identifiable information without a court order. Even cops can't get that information without a court order. THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER.
Secondly, there was no litigation in process involving the individual who was the subject of this whole thread.
I would completely understand and voice no objection to Comcast's action had there been a court order or the RIAA had already begun legal proceedings against the individual. But according to the original Reuters article, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
Even their privacy statement, which was quoted says:
"without your consent and without notice in order to comply with a valid legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or search warrant."
Show me the subpoena, court order, or search warrant and I will admit Comcast was right.
The undisclosed info is called a contract
by zoraster05 - 4/30/05 7:18 AM In reply to: Please show me... by techuserBuried in the standard contract is the warning: Don't do anything illegal.
If you do, Comcast has the "right" to turn you in.
Don't people read what they sign?
I'll bet your ISP, if you pay to the access to the Internet, has a similar set of clauses. Thus a person signing such, signs away many aspects of their "right to privacy".
Please Show Me?
by kwkid - 4/30/05 9:13 PM In reply to: Please show me... by techuserIf you would simply go to Comcast's website you could actually read the terms and conditions yourself.
right to due process
by angevelon - 5/4/05 9:57 PM In reply to: Please show me... by techuserunder current constitutional rights to privacy, no company or government agency can offer or make available information about private citezens activities
withwithout due proccess- example
im joe shmoe incorporated small buisiness, and im monitoring a p2p network for infringment of my intilectual property when i think i see an infringer, so i note the ip adress and the time and goto
myisp.isp to retrieve there info- now should myisp.isp give me there info?
the answer is no, given the state of p2p services and the routing abilities they have, it is very hard toprove illegal downloading without physical evidence( the computer in question) secondly, in the usa, all such maters are supposed to be pure accusation untill proven in court, meaning that the aleged infringer is protected by constitutional law untill a suit is file under the DMCA( if you dont know what this is your in the wrong forum). myisp can stop providing services to said infringer if it cunducts its on investigation on infringer based on accusations from a 3rd party, but it cannot simply handout customer information to anyone who claims to hold a grievance untill legal action is taken, and a supeana is submitted to them ordering them to hand it over
in the case of comcast handing information out to a corperation without user consent or notice based soley on an acusation by that third party without legal action and supeana, comcast has violated congretional rights of one of its user soley to please a corperation
now before anyone reads this far and says''but what about the user agreament said infringer sighned''? remember no agreement or contract is valid in this country(usa) if it violates in whole or in part any local state or federal law including the congretional right to privacy
comcast had a clearly defined responsability to protect its users information, regarless of third party accusation( it is for the courts to decide if a violation has been made, not the mpaa or iraa, they are not a judge or jury)untill due proccess by court of law required them to turn said information over,
REGARDLESS OF WETHER SAID INFRINGER ACTUALY VIOLATED COPYRIGHTS OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aparently in this case, if a private company knows enough people in high places, and has enough money, they can throw law and ethics to the wind at the expenss of consumers
Privacy....
by DarkPhalanx - 5/6/05 6:57 AM In reply to: right to due process by angevelonWhen you sign that contract, you're agreeing to their terms. If you don't like the fact that they don't approve of people using their services to commit illegal or fraudulent acts, then it's your choice not to accept their terms and not sign the contract. Individuals should stop using the constitution as a shield to protect them from the law after they commited a crime. It's very sad to see the lengths some will go to preserve their right to commit criminal acts, it really is. 
Comcast fully within their rights? We really don't know...
by techuser - 4/29/05 5:52 AM In reply to: Comcast was fully within their rights to do what they did... by DarkPhalanxOK, here is the relevant piece of the Privacy Statement: "We may be required by law or legal process to disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to lawyers and parties in connection with litigation and to law enforcement personnel. For example, we may be required by law to disclose personally identifiable information about you without your consent and without notice in order to comply with a valid legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or search warrant. "
Neither in this passage nor elsewhere within the Privacy Statement do they state that they may VOLUNTARILY disclose your personal info to lawyers or law enforcement personnel. If there was ongoing litigation (which it sounds like there was not) then the info could be turned over. If there was a valid legal process such as a court order or search warrant (which it sounds like there was not) then the info could be turned over. It seems to me that Comcast has made a breach of contract by voluntarily disclosing the personal info. It is irrelevant whether or not Comcast knew the customer MIGHT be in violation of the law. Even if there is evidence that the customer was doing probably illegal downloads, the customer is INNOCENT OF A CRIME UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW!
===================================================
>>>>>>>Let's repeat this very important point:
INNOCENT OF A CRIME UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.
====================================================
I suspect the Comcast Terms of Service (TOS) spells out their right to terminate service to a customer SUSPECTED of illegal activity, or maybe even explicitly states that circumventing the payment system of downloadable materials providers is cause for termination of service. An maybe the TOS spells out that the Privacy Statement is void if the customer is SUSPECTED of illegal activities. But who knows; the TOS wasn't presented in this topic to be able to check it.
It was stated earlier that Comcast could be subject to fines if they didn't turn over the info. We need to see what the LAW says here, not what we might WISH it to be. Would they be liable for fines in this case where no legal proceedings occurred? Of course it makes sense to fine Comcast if they don't comply with a valid legal process. It makes no sense to fine them if law enforcement simply REQUESTED the info and Comcast refused to divulge it.
In a nutshell, Comcast violated their own Privacy Statement, thereby violating the customer's rights. The customer SHOULD sue Comcast to help protect the rest of freedom-loving Americans from having their rights to privacy and freedom chipped away. If Comcast, or someone else wishes to file suit against the customer, DO IT! Then the Privacy Statement enables the legal system to get to the info.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
