OT: Privacy commissioner slaps Bell over traffic management
tjaviss-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Tue Sep 8 15:17:58 UTC 2009
Am I missing something? This "slap" still seems fairly
toothless/useless to me. Basically the CRTC statement seems to be:
"What you're doing is a violation of customers' privacy"
with the solution being
"add a few lines of cover-my-butt legal muttering on various
webpages and printouts telling customers what you're doing, update
your links, and all will be fine"
Is there a point to that? It's not like customers have a real CHOICE
in using Bell connections, especially those already using 3rd-party
ISP's that run off Bell lines. Give customers the option to opt-out of
DPI and then we're talking!
Basically they're not in any way punishing Bell for violating
customers' privacy, but rather gently admonishing them for doing so
without telling them (in some obscure and lengthy document that nobody
will read nor be able to contest anyhow).
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:01 AM, meng<meng-R6A+fiHC8nRWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> This may be of interest to some :-)
> Privacy commissioner slaps Bell over traffic management
> Findings under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)
> PIPEDA Case Summary #2009-010
> Report of Findings
> Assistant Commissioner recommends Bell Canada inform customers about Deep Packet Inspection
> The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
More information about the Legacy