DFWDraco76
Premium
join:2001-02-21
Plano, TX
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·AT&T U-Verse
|  How does SBC stand RE: recent RIAA activity?
Regarding the recent RIAA activity and their ridiculous production of subpoenas, where does SBC communications stand? Are they giving out subscriber information? If so, do they notify their customers first? I've been unable to find anything addressing these issues anywhere on SBC's website. |
|
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| I'm not sure, but I know according to our privacy policy the only time we will give out info is if we are ordered by a court subpoena or warrant. Just the threat alone we will not disclose your info. Best word of advice. If your concerned about it, don't do it.
--
There is no such thing as a dumb question. Better to ask and get it right, than to guess and mess it up. |
|
prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| reply to DFWDraco76
No offense, but the idea that any legitimate business would not comply with an objectively legal subpoena, warrant, or other process should really bother you. Do you really want drug dealers, mafiosi, and pedophiles to be able to run their businesses with impugnity simply by taking them online? Surely not. Asking SBC (or any online business)to disobey subpoenas, warn alleged criminal subscribers that subpoenas have issued, or look behind subpoenas is asking them to help criminals. Period.
There is room for disagreement on just how big a crime file swapping is. Arguably, downloading a song is about as serious as stealing a candybar from your local Wal-Mart. Yet we allow Wal-Mart to defend itself from candybar stealing by hiring security guards and detaining persons caught shoplifting. If a person is distributing several thousand songs on a server, then how are they any different from a record shop stocked with bootleg CD's? Law enforcement has long been authorized to seize counterfeit merchandise, destroy it, and prosecute the vendors.
The solution to this whole fileswapping debacle is arriving with the newer services selling individual songs at reasonable price points. The solution is not to encourage businesses to assist persons engaged in criminal activity, even of a de minimis nature. If you want free music, listen to the radio. Or buy a piano or guitar. |
|
GPorter
It Always Works Better When It's On
join:2001-03-21
San Antonio, TX
| said by prosecutor  :
No offense, but the idea that any legitimate business would not comply with an objectively legal subpoena, warrant, or other process should really bother you...
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the RIAA's use of subpoenas is legitimate and aboveboard. However, there is a written contract between the user and SBC, which is called the Terms of Service, that controls SBC's actions with the user's information.
When RIAA presented subpoenas to several colleges in the Northeast, most refused to cooperate because the subpoenas did not allow the schools to comply with what to them was an overriding statute-the higher education equivalent of the Privacy Act of 1974.
The schools had no intention of snubbing the court, they merely required more time than the subpoenas allowed to comply with other statutory requirements.
On the other hand, a number of ISPs have junked their legal responsibilities to their users, and given attorneys with questionable motives every shred of data on users at the mere threat of a subpoena. Don't they know that a subpoena is not a punitive document? Don't they know that it is a discovery tool that strictly limits (in this case) what information is sought? Don't they know that it is much easier to threaten using a subpoena than to actually obtain one? Sheesh!
I expect SBC to maintain the privacy of my user information until and unless presented with a valid subpoena issued by a bench with appropriate jurisdiction, much as the disclaimer for Broadband Reports' log in dictates. That's not too much to ask or expect from such a large company.
--
Glenn-Remembering 9-11-01 "Let's Roll!" |
|
Mortis
Premium
join:2001-12-07
Clearlake, CA
clubs:
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·Mediacom
| reply to prosecutor
Just my opinion here, but there is a difference, Wal-mart doesn't try to charge you a minimum of $750 per candy bar infringed. Who are these RIAA people hacking into your system? Law enforcement? Do they have a warrant to search your system? No, they are hackers, who now seemed legally endorsed to search private property on behalf of businesses. Be very careful what you wish for...just because something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. We all can think of stupid laws that have no weight.
You may laugh, but soon other companies will form RIAA-like consortiums. Soon, perhaps Micro$oft will be continuously scanning and blocking anyone who modifies the "functionality" of Windows, which is a TOS violation. "Sorry, sir, but you owe us $750 for infringing our intellectual rights by disabling our moronic and useless Messenger application." Where does it say in any law that it is okay to destroy someone else's intellectual property by crashing web servers and such on the suspicion of piracy? If so, that would mean it is legal for me to cause a denial of service attack on Microsoft? They stole Windows from Mac and their software is anticompetitive....isn't suspicion enough? How about a bundled antipiracy package placed obligatorily into antivirus software, in order to assure that your system is "legitimate". Do you know that if you change too many of your system components, that Windows XP can arbitrarily decide that you have a "new system" and therefore you need to re-pay for it? As a person who likes to upgrade his computer, I think that it is fair to use my XP OS on one machine at a time. Microsoft thinks that intellectually that one configuration is enough.....who do we want deciding right and wrong in these cases, the greedy corporations or courts of law?
Just my $.02
--
Crouching Sniper, Hidden Camper |
|
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| said by Mortis :
Who are these RIAA people hacking into your system? Law enforcement? Do they have a warrant to search your system? No, they are hackers, who now seemed legally endorsed to search private property on behalf of businesses.
Also keep in mind this eliminates due process of law and violates the constitution which overrides all newer bills.
--
There is no such thing as a dumb question. Better to ask and get it right, than to guess and mess it up. |
|
prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| reply to GPorter
Time limits are a legitimate consideration. Overbreadth might be another.
Under no circumstances, however, can SBC (or any other internet provider) try to contract around its legal obligations to the court system. In other words, the contract does not, and cannot, matter. Your logic, taken to its extreme, might allow an ISP to contract with persons that it will notify them of the existence of a subpoena. This in turn would allow a pedophile or mafiosi to up and move prior to a legitimate law enforcement action.
Fact is, a number of major market ISP's are starting to limit the length of time they keep data in order to limit their subpoena exposure. This also means, however, that they may be (are) destroying evidence of the worst sort of criminal offenses imaginable.
Fact also is that SBC does require subpoenas for its records in every single case. The record center is here in Dallas. The system is cumbersome and slow, but it works in most cases. The hardest part is finding a real live human being to take responsibility for compliance. |
|
prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| reply to Mortis
If the RIAA hacks your server, sue 'em. Get everyone else together and file a class action. The law is on your side, there.
That is a completely different issue from subpoena compliance.
In fact, as part of your lawsuit, the first thing you should do is subpoena RIAA's records regarding their contracts with the persons hacking the system.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-28 14:22:37] |
|
DFWDraco76
Premium
join:2001-02-21
Plano, TX
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to DFWDraco76
from »www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···6516.DTL :
...
And in the wake of such suits, many Internet service providers (including SBC Communications) agreed to first notify users when they received a subpoena, giving them a week or so to hire an attorney to try to quash the order.
...
I didn't mean to start a debate--I won't touch it with a ten foot pole myself. I was just curious as to the official policy of SBC. |
|
prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| A legitimate debate, though, don't you think?
To give greater detail to the above post, SBC has always, at least since 1996, required a subpoena for the records I've sought from them.
I sincerely hope that SBC will not notify users suspected of criminal conduct of the existence of the subpoena. That could subject the company and its officers to civil and criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. It could also inform real, live, hard core criminals that law enforcement is closing in. Targets of lawsuits and defendants in criminal investigations have ample means to protect their rights and privacy in court in this country, without limiting the legitimate use of subpoenas and similar instruments.
Again, part of the problem is that the same system is used to prosecute murderers and persons stealing candybars. The solution is to change the consequence of stealing candybars, not screw up the the system used to prosecute murderers and pedophiles.
You also need to remember that the subpoena is a right that every citizen enjoys when they go into court, whether as plaintiff or defendant. Do you want to limit your own ability to defend yourself or obtain redress against another who has injured you or your interests?
[text was edited by author 2003-07-28 14:41:33] |
|
kmac1
Off in new directions
Premium,VIP
join:2001-06-07
Port Neches, TX
| reply to DFWDraco76
For what it's worth:
I would STRONGLY advise any who are using the TARGETED services to CEASE & DESIST, ASAP!
I wish I could elaborate more, but that's all I can say right now.
Once more:
I would STRONGLY advise any who are using the TARGETED services to CEASE & DESIST, ASAP!
And for those that missed the above messages:
I would STRONGLY advise any who are using the TARGETED services to CEASE & DESIST, ASAP!
--
Put your spare CPU cycles to WORK! Join the BBR DC Teams and join in on helping helping find ET or cures for diseases. SETI and Team Helix. Join in on the fun! |
|
techwench
I Work For Food
Premium
join:2003-06-26
Sherman, TX
| said by kmac1 :
I would STRONGLY advise any who are using the TARGETED services to CEASE & DESIST, ASAP!
Heh. So what about NON-targeted services? 
Okay, sorry for taking it off-topic...but it's kinda not off. I don't know. Now I'm confusing myself.  |
|
GPorter
It Always Works Better When It's On
join:2001-03-21
San Antonio, TX
| reply to prosecutor
said by prosecutor :
Time limits are a legitimate consideration. Overbreadth might be another.
Under no circumstances, however, can SBC (or any other internet provider) try to contract around its legal obligations to the court system. In other words, the contract does not, and cannot, matter. Your logic, taken to its extreme, might allow an ISP to contract with persons that it will notify them of the existence of a subpoena. This in turn would allow a pedophile or mafiosi to up and move prior to a legitimate law enforcement action.
I wouldn't want them to notify the subject of a subpoena. But I would expect them to-as you state elsewhere-require a subpoena before divulging information they have contracted to retain in confidence.
said by prosecutor :
Fact is, a number of major market ISP's are starting to limit the length of time they keep data in order to limit their subpoena exposure. This also means, however, that they may be (are) destroying evidence of the worst sort of criminal offenses imaginable.
From what I've read of these sorts of offenses, the only thing that is lost is the potential for information detailing the length of time the offender has been committing said offenses. On the other hand, maintaining a shorter archive of customer records reduces the number of personnel and amount of storage space needed. I call that a business compromise, not aiding and abetting.
said by prosecutor :
Fact also is that SBC does require subpoenas for its records in every single case. The record center is here in Dallas. The system is cumbersome and slow, but it works in most cases. The hardest part is finding a real live human being to take responsibility for compliance.
Bureaucracies of all sorts have a certain amount of inertia. Obtaining a subpoena is not exactly a speedy process, is it? On the other hand, having access to the actual keeper of records has the effect of deterring the casual (excuse the expression) hack lawyer attempting to intimidate a firm into releasing something that said hack lawyer has no legal right to.
--
Glenn-Remembering 9-11-01 "Let's Roll!" |
|
icp1
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to DFWDraco76
I have no problem w/ subpoena's getting info, but isn't there an issue with these RIAA subpoena's that they do not even go through a real judge? I thought they have a "law" where their request for info only go through an admin. law person and not the normal judge of a real subpoena..
Am I off-base or does someone know about this? |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Getting a subpoena is NOT the same as getting sued. Period.
You can get subpoena for almost anything, records, etc. Shoot Landlords get them even from lawyers for extensive background checks on possible tenents.
It brings a smile to my face knowing RIAA is spending so much money on them, kinda like payback for the $20 CD for one good song...:D
--
If PLC goes mainstream, every other broadband provider will be considered what dialup is today...not broadband. |
|
prosecutor
Do Your Duty--Be A Juror
Premium
join:2002-11-15
Plano, TX
| reply to icp1
said by icp1 :
I have no problem w/ subpoena's getting info, but isn't there an issue with these RIAA subpoena's that they do not even go through a real judge?
In most places, a clerk issues the subpoena rather than the judge. However, the subpoena request must be signed by an identified member of the public and it must be related to an existing or potential suit. The application typically requires a statement that the subpoena is intended to obtain information material to the suit. It depends upon the jurisdiction. So, a company cannot simply come in and tell the clerk "give me half a dozen blank subpoenas for SBC." If the clerk issues the subpoena without requiring compliance, the clerk would be subject to discipline and or suit. If a given user is ultimately identified and added to the suit, they'll have an opportunity to come in and move to quash or otherwise exclude any evidence recovered.
Don't be fooled, folks. That hack lawyer you're complaining about this week may represent you next week and need to obtain records from SBC about the person who wrecked your car or robbed you or molested your kids. Heck, it might even be the guy representing you in your trespass suit against the RIAA's hackers. The problem isn't subpoenas, its collusion amongst the record companies, artificially high prices, and objectively illegal responses to those inflated prices. But, if everyone focuses on the subpoenas, then you'll end up protecting the bad guys and hurting yourselves. |
|
Balzer
Cat Man Dew
join:2000-12-18
Tulsa
·Cox HSI
| reply to DFWDraco76
They said it has been abused YET, but here it comes anyone can us the DCMA. You don't have to have any proof for what you are going to use the info for. But let someone go and get all some ISPs users info and sell it to another country or use it to kill, rape, or ID theft, and the law will change. Guess what it will happen. And there is nothing no body and do about it at all. The gate has been open. What safe guard is there to stop someone for using the info to do harm? |
|
ctp
@dividezero.net | reply to DFWDraco76
I'll keep using my *REAL* source for getting "stuff" over my sbc dsl. I hope all you Kazaa nubs burn in hell, that stuff is illegal. (*pets ssl/tls ftps you will never see in your wildest dreams). Flame me. I want the attention. I am desperate. |
|
aatucker
join:2000-03-10
Belton, MO
| reply to DFWDraco76
Very simple - THE LAW IS THE LAW. Go read the COPYRIGHT LAWS and it is easy to understand. Just because you don't get caught stealing (yes it is stealing), doesn't make it right. This is one problem in our society today - not enough enforcement of the law. I don't think any of the real offenders would tolerate this if the shoe was on the other foot.
AT |
|
TazDev
@twtelecom.net
| reply to DFWDraco76
Amazing how some people justify criminal activity. You wouldn't expect SBC to withhold information if bank robbers were using their network to plan heists. No reason for SBC to withhold information when people are stealing copyrighted music.
It's about time the RIAA started playing hardball, and it's good to know SBC will cooperate in their efforts to stop illegal file sharing. |
|
