🚀 go-pugleaf

<email_me@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:d67533tesiqrsu704pfsrdc18kdr6ucub8@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes   On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:07:54 -0500, "Peter D"
> <please@.sk> wrote:
>
>><email_me@mts.net> wrote in message
>>news:kp5433dbij13t7e77sies9hhi98j57gmfi@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> With comments like "there's nothing wrong with his company identifying
>>> alleged file swappers when ordered to do so" , the opperative word is
>>> alleged. This ISP deseves to have their users leave them enmass, what
>>> ever happened to innocent till proven guilty?
>>
>>> http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/04/21/swap050421.html
>>>
>>> A lawyer for ISP Videotron says there's nothing wrong with his company
>>> identifying alleged file swappers when ordered to do so.
>>>
>>> "We do it on a regular basis [when issued a court order]. It's not
>>> very complicated," Serge Sasseville said in an interview with the
>>> Canadian Press.
>>
>>You imply that it's some sort of arbitrary and capricious act on their 
>>part,
>>or that other ISPs would not act this way in the same set of 
>>circumstances.
>>They would if they're smart.
>>
>>The significant part of the quote is "when issued a court order". The ISP 
>>is
>>*required by law* to comply. There is not 'right' being infringed by their
>>compliance. It's a matter of obeying the law.
>
>
> It's not an illegal act in Canada, so what Canadian court would
> capriciously issue it?

Noe. Courts aren't "capricious".

> It would have to be an American court order which holds no weight in 
> Canada.

Or a US Court Order served on a US company with access and mirror 
images/copies of the servers of its Canadian subsidaries. Or a US Court 
request to a Canadian Court to serve same. Or the result of a request that a 
Canadian Court deemed sufficent to warrant an Order.