Comcast Sued for Disclosing Customer Information
Posted by malebolgia on 15 April 2005 - 22:35 · 64 comments & 3244 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by oqwarrior on 15 Apr 2005 - 22:36
- Ugh I can't stand Comcast.
-
#2 Posted by krono6 on 15 Apr 2005 - 22:45
- Comcast is doing illegal things to catch other people doing illegal things! :o
-
#3 Posted by iczman on 15 Apr 2005 - 22:47
- Comcast fooking sucks. They spam all my @comcast.net emails even if they're just newly created. They also messed up my billing and overcharge me for cable TV, and told me they couldn't do anything about it.
-
(4 replies)
#4 Posted by thechitowncubs on 15 Apr 2005 - 22:47
- I like comcast
thats cause i don't pay for it
-
#4.2 Posted by thechitowncubs on 15 Apr 2005 - 23:13
- No, I let my parents pay for it.
uh, duhrr
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by westonb_2005 on 15 Apr 2005 - 23:41
- I liked Comcast internet. I had it before we moved, now he have Adelphia
-
#5.1 Posted by qkslvr221 on 16 Apr 2005 - 01:16
- Which has gone bankrupt and reportedly being jointly-transfered to Roadrunner and Comcast.
Check out the article
Apparently in a small amount of time you will either be a comcast or a roadrunner subscriber. -
#5.2 Posted by threedaysdwn on 16 Apr 2005 - 01:55
- Pray that you get roadrunner.
-
#5.3 Posted by PseudoRandomDragon on 16 Apr 2005 - 13:36
- Roadrunner isn't that much better for privacy. They have carnivore.
-
(6 replies)
#6 Posted by AndyD on 15 Apr 2005 - 23:46
- There has to be more to this story. How can Comcast charge someone for that? Or is it a fine? Or did the person download more than what the month limit is for that user? Doesn't make sense to me.
-
#6.1 Posted by Skyfrog on 16 Apr 2005 - 00:04
- The RIAA is the one that's charging them, Comcast just handed their names over (with no court order or anything from what I understand). Though they seem to think so, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency.
-
#6.3 Posted by threedaysdwn on 16 Apr 2005 - 01:54
- It's a conglomerate of faceless corporate organizations whose purpose is to stifle competition from non-members, monopolize the music "industry" (anyone remember when music was an art?), control all possible distribution channels, and invent then promote popular idols like Britney Spears.
Their mission statement is to reap the greatest profits they possibly can while A) Abusing the greatest number of people possible (especially artists and consumers) and B) Achieve those goals with the least amount of risk and progressive change. -
#6.4 Posted by bucko on 16 Apr 2005 - 13:53
- Well then, if they are not in uniform they can't do **** all to my mates
-
#6.6 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 18 Apr 2005 - 11:09
- Threedaysdwn, that is by far the most accurate and concise definition of the RIAA that I have ever had the pleasure to witness. Thank you.
-
#7 Posted by AminoSC on 15 Apr 2005 - 23:51
- You go gurllllll!
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by aenima4six2 on 15 Apr 2005 - 23:57
- Im kinda curious, is it true that Comcast has no legal right to supply the RIAA (MPAA, M$, whomever is demanding) with the Name, address and or other pertinant information of users who break copywright law? Suppose they did not supply this info, would Comcast be sued in place of its user for their illegal downloadings/uploadings?
Finally, if anyone knows, I live on campus and obviously am forced to use the school internet, recently i received an email stating I (or someone on my computer or router) had downloaded/ uploaded illegal content via bitorrent. My internet was shut off to cease and decist the transfer, and I was told that i would not be turned on untill I signed a statement guaranteeing that the material was deleted. I understand the deletion statement and denial of service was only on behalf of my school (doing their active part not to get sued), but im curious, obviously a MS watchdog nailed my computer transfering allegid illegal content and contacted my school. I am curious if that was just a "warning" from MS, or is it probable that legal action against me will soon follow?
[B][/B] -
#8.1 Posted by DeepThought on 16 Apr 2005 - 00:41
QUOTE but im curious, obviously a MS watchdog nailed my computer transfering allegid illegal content and contacted my school.
I very highly doubt that Microsoft is spying on your computer, and I have a feeling the school found out about the downloads because YOU CONNECT TO THE INTERNET THROUGH THEM. Any and all ports used by P2P are logged by the school, and the statement is to protect the school from the RIAA/MPAA. Microsoft has NOTHING to do with any of that, save for the fact that you work on their OS.-
#8.2 Posted by Treefrog on 16 Apr 2005 - 01:12
- You do realize that *anybody* that is in the BT swarm with you as either a seed or peer can see your IP, right?
-
#8.3 Posted by PseudoRandomDragon on 16 Apr 2005 - 13:39
- If you have a pirated windows OS and tried to use windows update or software thats only for those with a genuine advantage well...yeah. But I think it was just someone on the BT network or the school network itself that is getting you in trouble.
-
#9 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 16 Apr 2005 - 00:13
- So... when Verizon, SBC, and all the others release names it's completely fine?
-
#10 Posted by s0wi on 16 Apr 2005 - 00:19
- Isn't comcast involved in the movie business? or the owners of comcast are?
I have comcast, I'm switching to verizon's fios internet service once it's availible in my area.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by ChopSuey on 16 Apr 2005 - 01:30
- Wow... their privacy policy is very interesting to say the least. Here is an excerpt:
QUOTE Applicable law authorizes Comcast to disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber for the following purposes if the disclosure is:
- necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, the Service and Service features or other services provided to the subscriber;
- required by law or legal process (as described below in this Policy); or
- of the names and addresses of subscribers for "mailing list" or other purposes (subject to each subscriber's right to prohibit or limit this disclosure as described below in this Policy).
Comcast may use and disclose personally identifiable information collected on the Service as provided for by applicable law in order to:
- install, configure, operate, provide, support, and maintain the Service;
- confirm that you are receiving the service requested and are properly billed for it;
- identify you when changes are made to your Service account;
- make you aware of new products or services that may be of interest to you;
- understand the use of, and identify improvements to, our Service;
- detect unauthorized reception, use, or abuse of the Service;
- determine whether there are violations of any applicable policies and terms of service;
- manage the Service network;
- configure cable modems and/or other cable service-related devices; and
- comply with law.
Comcast may also use and disclose personally identifiable information as provided for by applicable law in order to perform, for example:
- billing and invoicing
- administration
- surveys
- collection of fees and charges
- marketing;
- service delivery and customization;
- maintenance and operations;
- technical support;
- hardware and software upgrades; and
- fraud prevention
We sometimes disclose personally identifiable information about you to our affiliates or to others who work for us. We sometimes also disclose personally identifiable information about you to our employees for Comcast's internal business purposes, as well as to outside auditors, professional advisors and service providers, potential business transition partners, and regulators. Typically, we make these disclosures when the disclosure is necessary to render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, the Service or other services we provide to you. 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. We may also disclose certain personally identifiable information about you to third parties such as, for example, charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, in connection with disclosures made for "mailing list" or other purposes as described below in this Policy.
You can view the entire policy at http://www.comcast.net/privacy/.
-
#12 Posted by Bwizzel-B on 16 Apr 2005 - 02:38
- Basically, you give up all privacy rights for the priviledge of being a Comcast customer? The hell with them..... oh wait, RoadBlunder has pretty much the exact same policy.
-
(4 replies)
#13 Posted by lester_kun on 16 Apr 2005 - 02:39
- And all this leads to an interesting question: which in your opinion is the best US ISP?
-
#13.1 Posted by xinok on 16 Apr 2005 - 03:56
- I've had Bellsouth for a few years now, no complaints so far and can't say I've heard anything bad about them.
-
#13.2 Posted by Treefrog on 16 Apr 2005 - 04:24
- I'll second Bellsouth. Stay away from Earthlink/Mindspring (yeah, they were good at first, now they just suck) and Comcast.
-
#13.3 Posted by Aeonandromere on 16 Apr 2005 - 20:07
- Charter has served me well so far.
-
(8 replies)
#14 Posted by SapUMBC on 16 Apr 2005 - 03:28
- "Oh no! Comcast told the RIAA that my kids were downloading music illegally! As*holes! I'm gonna sue!"
Stupid idiot people like this deserve to be punched in the head. You violated the ToS, what in God's name were you expecting? You let your kids download music illegally and expected nothing to happen? Jesus, watch the news. "RIAA sues another xxx number of their customers". Common sense cannot be a strong force in her family.
Do I like the RIAA? No.
Do I like the fact that I can't legally and freely download a song from P2P? No.
But she broke a law and she's getting pissy about it.
Comcast is a business. Comcast provides internet for their customers. Internet means you need to have bandwidth and transfer. Bandwidth and transfer cost money. To have some little kid cutting profits by downloading the hot new Ashanti (or whoever is popular now) isn't a good business practice.
I'm sorry this woman and the rest of you who think Comcast is the bad guy are mouthing off, as you obviously have no clue how to run a decent business.
Take this for face value, insult me, troll, whatever. I don't care. Comcast has a tight ToS and I would put good money down that the judge will laugh this dumb woman right out of court. -
#14.1 Posted by thechitowncubs on 16 Apr 2005 - 03:53
- now were getting a little futile
-
#14.2 Posted by s0wi on 16 Apr 2005 - 05:32
- At least she's got guts to fight back, or maybe just stupid, who knows. And I don't think she broke any laws at all.
The RIAA are just being bullies acting like a hurt little puppy, and since they are a big corporation and have lots of money, most people would automatically think what they say or do is morally right and the truth. But they don't give a ****, not about you or the artists, all they care for is money and big profits. Only reason why some artists are with them is cuz they are too lazy to find another place of income for themselves.
Metallica wouldn't even be metallica anymore if there was no money involved. They suck by the way. -
#14.3 Posted by werejag on 16 Apr 2005 - 06:09
- she didnt break a law. since her case hasnt went to court. you are inocient until proven guilt. so she didnt break the law but they comcast might have
-
#14.4 Posted by breadfan on 16 Apr 2005 - 13:31
QUOTE she didnt break a law. since her case hasnt went to court. you are inocient until proven guilt. so she didnt break the law but they comcast might have
Amazingly, you not only incorrectly stated a concept, but you then failed to apply it as you stated it. Whether she broke the law or not has nothing to do with going to court, she either did or she didn't. A court may be called upon to determine whether she broke the law, but they are determining what she did, in fact, already. You are presumed innocent until proven guilt, not actually innocent. You conclusion leads you to declare her innocent because there hasn't been a trial, but then you declare that comcast may be guilty.
-
#14.5 Posted by djesteban on 16 Apr 2005 - 16:47
- well.... when you live in a stupid country where you get sued for downloading some songs off the internet.... and you get the occasion to counter-sue... i<d do it right on the spot....
this is how US works.... the land of the free... lol
a stupid corporate organisation sues me?? allright... i'll counter-sue
it's all about lawsuit baby!
I used to go in vacation down south in the summer.... unfortunatly this country has become retarded i'll all kinds of way... from the streets where everybody is paranoids to... the internet... so I don't go anymore...
-
#14.6 Posted by werejag on 16 Apr 2005 - 20:54
QUOTE Amazingly, you not only incorrectly stated a concept, but you then failed to apply it as you stated it. Whether she broke the law or not has nothing to do with going to court, she either did or she didn't. A court may be called upon to determine whether she broke the law, but they are determining what she did, in fact, already. You are presumed innocent until proven guilt, not actually innocent. You conclusion leads you to declare her innocent because there hasn't been a trial, but then you declare that comcast may be guilty.
I correctly stated a concept and you understood it completly. if you read all the above statements you would see that some misguided people here believe she commited a crime, this is not the case.
there is a trial for comcast and not one for her. you must have a case before one is found guilty.
-
#14.7 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 18 Apr 2005 - 11:17
QUOTE But she broke a law and she's getting pissy about it.
That is still under contention. Comcast also broke the law, and two wrongs don't make a right. If every time someone broke a petty law it was open season on them, then it would be a pretty crap world. Privacy rights are ever diminishing, and this "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about" attitude is absolutely retarded.-
#14.8 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 19 Apr 2005 - 13:27
- No, the problem is that the quote is correct while Comcast didn't break any laws. Whether you think what they did was wrong or not doesn't matter, because there are currently policies that allow ISPs to release information on their users by the RIAA / MPAA's request.
-
(9 replies)
#15 Posted by metro on 16 Apr 2005 - 04:13
- I work for Comcast. I find it a little odd that a "debt collection agency" made the threat for the individual to pay a fine for copywritten music. As far as I know, there is only one collection agency that we use to collect debts from customers who have not paid their bill and their accounts have been charged off and sold to the collection agency for collection. I work in the west market and have only heard of one agency mentioned. Seattle would be in the same general market, but a different system in our cable network.
Selling account information to collection agencies is completely legal, and is practiced by thousands of businesses across the United States. In no way do I feel that her account information was sold or handed off to the RIAA. It sounds like a ploy that the collection agency devised to collect from a person that made no effort to even pay her debts after the fact that it had been turned over to the agency and reported to her credit. If it were illegal for companies to sell charged off accounts, thousands upon thousands of people would have valid lawsuits in this country for not paying their bills and having the agencies as a last resort to collect monies owed for past services.
The bottom line, the woman should either not download copywritten material or police her kids from doing so. I do not know how the RIAA and the Settlement Support Center obtained her info. To label the SSC as a collection agency is ludicrous. This could be the reason why corporate is being really touchy about account verification and unauthorized contacts not being given access. I would also not rule out the fact that a person external to Comcast who knew the woman's e-mail address, home address, and contact info may have contributed the information to the RIAA. The RIAA have a referral program for people to collect a reward if they narc people off and the RIAA can successfully prosecute the person in a court of law.
Boo hoo, don't break the law and you won't have to worry about things like this happening.
-
#15.1 Posted by Slugbait on 16 Apr 2005 - 05:04
- metro, you sound like you're making sense. It could be this woman is actually making up part of the story, AFAI can tell. Just a little too "un-ordinary"...I haven't yet heard of a debt-collection agency asking for payment of downloaded content before the RIAA has a chance to sue the person.
-
#15.2 Posted by werejag on 16 Apr 2005 - 06:22
- no law was broken until a court case has been filed and found guilt. get that right.
isps here in america have gone way beyond the service i contract them to do. all there jobs are is to provide a ip and the bandwidth i pay for. if a isp has violated my privacy they too shall be sued.
-
#15.3 Posted by divertom15 on 16 Apr 2005 - 08:08
- seriously i dont want extra crap anti-spyware virus protection or parental controls. all the stuff on the included cds is bull**** . I want an ip and the modem and the bandwith. nothing more.
-
#15.4 Posted by whitedragon on 16 Apr 2005 - 18:50
- Amen to that!
-
#15.5 Posted by Slugbait on 17 Apr 2005 - 04:19
QUOTE no law was broken until a court case has been filed and found guilt. get that right. QUOTE isps here in america have gone way beyond the service i contract them to do. QUOTE all there jobs are is to provide a ip and the bandwidth i pay for. QUOTE if a isp has violated my privacy they too shall be sued -
#15.6 Posted by werejag on 17 Apr 2005 - 05:38
- you assume lots. tell me oh wise one how can i be liable for something i didn't sign? and i contract them to do a job nothing more, if you do not understand that sorry cant explain it to you.
you contract someone to do a job. you pay them for that job.
if they contracted me then id be payed to surf the web? lol you are funny
-
#15.8 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 17 Apr 2005 - 08:01
- SapUMBC: Seconded.
-
#15.9 Posted by Slugbait on 17 Apr 2005 - 19:22
- werejag, you usually come off like an over-bearing, misinformed, pessimistic little snot with grandiose hallucinations of intellectual superiority. This time you've out-done yourself.
If you don't agree to THEIR terms of service, you can't post your spew on this board...cuz won't get Internet access until you do. We could only wish that YOU hadn't agreed to THEIR service contract, but no...here you are, wasting ones and zeros.
You don't contract anyone. You only pay them. Now, I'm sure you need to get back to your P2P collecting of Britney Spears Greatest Hits, but don't be surprised if you suddenly get a subpoena - with your actual name on it - from the RIAA to appear in court, just like thousands of others have before you...and all due to the fact that a judge said it was OK for your ISP to release your info to them. And the only way to stop them from releasing info about you is to unplug your modem (please do, oh please...)
-
#16 Posted by Foub on 16 Apr 2005 - 11:03
- I'm glad I live in Canada where to protect your privacy rights...
-
#17 Posted by robpears on 16 Apr 2005 - 12:22
- I hope he wins
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by BlazingTech on 16 Apr 2005 - 13:54
- Thank god. Bless her. Someone has to take a stand somewhere.
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by aenima4six2 on 16 Apr 2005 - 23:06
QUOTE I very highly doubt that Microsoft is spying on your computer, and I have a feeling the school found out about the downloads because YOU CONNECT TO THE INTERNET THROUGH THEM. Any and all ports used by P2P are logged by the school, and the statement is to protect the school from the RIAA/MPAA. Microsoft has NOTHING to do with any of that, save for the fact that you work on their OS.
#8.2 Reply by Treefrog on 15 Apr 2005 - 20:12 Quote this comment
You do realize that *anybody* that is in the BT swarm with you as either a seed or peer can see your IP, right?
#8.3 Reply by PseudoRandomDragon on 16 Apr 2005 - 08:39 Quote this comment
If you have a pirated windows OS and tried to use windows update or software thats only for those with a genuine advantage well...yeah. But I think it was just someone on the BT network or the school network itself that is getting you in trouble.
Actually when i had to go up to the IT department to get connetion turned back on. The IT manager showed me exactly which M$ wachdog nailed me, what pacets of data i had sent them, and the warning they sent to my school.-
#19.1 Posted by stopdroproll on 17 Apr 2005 - 00:17
-
#20 Posted by xtremev3 on 17 Apr 2005 - 05:29
- OK, COMCAST IS ****, I lived in San Diego, CA and Had time warner cable (Roadrunner) badass, but omg i moved up to san jose there internet sucks every day soemthing goes wrong with there network
-
#21 Posted by Zeitgeist on 17 Apr 2005 - 18:35
- The *** is behind the RIAA, obviously. Who else?
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by Master Of Puppets on 17 Apr 2005 - 22:09
- I live in Canada, thank god (not for the GWB reasons, the p2p ones ) I have Bell-Sympatico and have had a few problems with em, all fixed within a couple of hours/minutes. The RIAA can suck my hairy white Canadian ass for all I care. I can BitTorrent till I die and they cant do jack shat to me.
-
#22.1 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 18 Apr 2005 - 11:23
QUOTE thank god (not for the GWB reasons, the p2p ones )
How about some thanks for both? Though the RIAA may suck your hairy Canadian balls, they have delusions of being an international law enforcement agency. When someone informs them that they're not Interpol, and they have no jurisdiction in their locale, it always puts a smile on my face. Time for TPB to put up some more legal threat letters, always a great read.
What's New in This Release:
· Added Opera folder profile directory
· Fixed default value handling in registry entry recovery
· Fixed always opening on settings page
· Fixed localization of IncludeServices checkbox
· Fixed status bar text after SysInternals scan
· Fixed Host Redirect fix result for duplicates
· Fixed another selection bug
· Added Save/Load View Report settings
· Improved proxy handling to allow @'s in username
· Protection of exclude lists against tampering
· Main app now can detect changes to itself
· New /unimmunize CLP
· Updated system startup database usage
· Made settings password dialog to masked
· Changed Immunization to use encrypted file
· Updated ActiveX & BHO icons
· Implemented immunize undo value
· Added uninstall confirmation dialog
· Added shredder confirmation dialog
· Update result icon for cache
· Updated availability of SysInts excludes remove option
· Now uses better server for first update contact
· Added button to stop update downloads
· Added VeriSign certificate (for additional contents check)