
When Telecom Companies Search Your Home for Piracy - Thorondor
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9k7pya/tv-addons-sued-by-rogers-bell-fairplay-members
======
berti
> ... and his use of a web service that hides a site’s hosting provider
> (Lackman says it was the immensely popular service Cloudflare), meant that
> there was a real risk that Lackman might destroy evidence if they didn’t
> conduct a surprise search.

TIL Cloudflare makes you suspicious in the eyes of the law. Lawyers are truly
great humans. /s

~~~
stephengillie
Law is an industry entirely based around charisma and precedent. Entirely
"(s)he said, (s)he said". It's quite boring on a technical level, because
maths are rarely involved. And quite frustrating on a human level, because
judgments are based more on the judge's previous meal and night's sleep than
the case facts.

------
talltimtom
I find it weird that they just took down the site and took over the twitter
account during a search. Nothing has been ruled illegal. It’s like if someone
sued Google and decided to take the search engine down during the initial
search for illegal material. How is this legal? And even if the site is deemed
illegal, how does that allow them to hijack his twitter account?

------
AllegedAlec
I'm more and more concerned about shit like this. I'm not doing anything
illegal now, but that doesn't seem to stop companies from destroying your
entire life if they even think you have done something illegal.

I feel like if I'd have to have anything that could be seen as remotely shifty
behind additional encryption layers, preferably with a way to destroy the
records completely at a distance.

------
sdfjkl
I don't understand why searches can be done by private parties, with no police
present. This seems extremely wrong to me. How can this be?

~~~
mr_toad
They had a bailiff, so presumably they’d already been to court and got a court
order.

If you refuse entry to a bailiff they’ll just call the police and knock your
door down.

~~~
lucozade
> they’ll just call the police and knock your door down

Not in this case they won't. They are absolutely not allowed to use force,
even (legally) reasonable force, to enter. As such, if the defendant isn't
home, they can't enter at all.

Also, the defendant is legally allowed to refuse entry. Or more precisely,
they may only enter if the defendant permits entry. However, if the defendant
does not permit entry, they may be in contempt of court.

And yes, I know the last bit is perverse. Apparently that's deliberate (at
least it was in the English law from which the Canadian law was derived).

~~~
slededit
> And yes, I know the last bit is perverse

They would rather have it dealt with quietly in a court room than have a
breach of the peace. In this case its your neighbors being protected not the
defendant.

------
andybak
The concept of intellectual property was invented to further certain economic
goals. It provides a social good. There is no doubt about that but it has a
drastically shorter history than the concept of physical property (which
predates written records to my knowledge)

The legal system has evolved many safeguards over the years related to
improper search, self-incrimination and due process.

I find it curious how easily the latter is sacrificed in favour of the former
without anyone suggesting we need to continually reevaluate the degree that
the former provides us benefit.

I think this is partly a language problem. Intellectual "Property" has now
become merely Intellectual Property without the quotes. This sleight of hand
has led many to forget it's origin's and contingent nature and to treat it as
some kind of natural right rather than a concession from the state to further
commerce and creativity.

~~~
beerlord
The websites offering piracy services or advertising/promoting the
availability of pirated content should simply be blocked at a national level.
It seems to be working well enough in Australia: piracy visits are down 50%,
piracy volumes are down 25%. This is following their DNS-based blocking of
sites like ThePirateBay a few years ago. Its certainly better than suing
people.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Let's start by dialing back the ridiculous DRM, which makes it a lot more
convenient to pirate content, rather than pay for the DRM-laden official
releases.

~~~
kingo55
No thanks.

I prefer to help content rights holders fund increasingly broad DRM
capabilities which enable control of my devices by unknown third parties.
Can't wait until the next "innovation" like this gem comes out:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

------
expertentipp
Media companies behave like warlords claiming an absolute monopoly on media
content distribution and treating accordingly anyone they might perceive as
competition.

------
empressplay
So according to the article you don't have to let them in to search your
residence (although you may be held in contempt) but these fine individuals
turned up with a locksmith?

IANAL but sounds like a case of bad faith if I've ever heard it. Should've
forced them to use the locksmith and then had the cops charge them with
burglary.

~~~
tomalpha
I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but under UK law which I suspect is
similar, this is called a Civil Search Order[0] or Anton Pillar Order.

"A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1]

However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right _as such_ to
require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt
of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be
present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject
of the order. It's very very expensive.

Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2]

[0][https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-
orders/](https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/)

[1]
[https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?origin...](https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&comp=pluk)

[2] [https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-
canada-...](https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-
guidance-for-anton-piller-orders)

~~~
dade_
It says in the article that it was an Anton Pillar Order. They scewed it up
though, everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown
out.

Most of these companies are not run by very bright people. Their businesses
are only still here because they are a government oligarchy.

~~~
charlieflowers
> "everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown
> out."

No, the article says that ruling was overturned later.

------
denzil_correa
> Deep-pocketed companies, on the other hand, “not only have the resources to
> pursue [perceived harms] to the point where individuals don’t have the
> ability to defend themselves, but also to advance mechanisms with fewer
> safeguards,” Israel said.

Does anyone else feel this shouldn't be the case? Clearly, the amount of money
in your pockets shouldn't decide the quality of legal representation. We need
to evaluate alternate proposals that fixes these gaps.

~~~
ddalex
I'd say the law should pool together the defense and plaintiff budgets and
split it half and half for each parties lawyers who then would auction for the
right to represent.

Thus giving each party comparable lawyers, driving down the cost of legal
representation and giving everybody a fairer process.

------
appleflaxen
He was smart for calling a lawyer during the search, but he committed a major
error by providing login credentials for his machines. Yikes.

~~~
expertentipp
> he committed a major error by providing login credentials for his machines

At the point when one is forced to unlock electronic devices on request even
during security check on the airport, one is simply unable to identify when
some legal bullies exceed their authority.

------
mxuribe
That is just awful...and all this time i thought Canada was a far freer (as in
liberty) place to live. Huh.

~~~
radicaldreamer
When it comes to individual protections specifically around searches and
especially speech protections, the UK, Canada and Australia are far less free
than the United States.

------
mothsonasloth
I wonder if there's a Linux package that can wipe your server/ computer when
you input a specific code when logging in?

~~~
bklaasen
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153862)

------
jiveturkey
> _“I never saw this as hurting [rights holders],” Lackman told me. “People
> run sites that link to content—torrent sites. Those are the people who are
> stealing the movies.”_

typical feigned naivete

------
ryanlol
How come pirates making decent money with sites like this always seem to be
woefully unprepared for any sort of legal action being taken against them?

~~~
TylerE
What is there to gain? They know they're boned as soon as they get sued. Might
as well just take the money instead of giving it to a lawyer.

------
scopecreep
They meet my 2 Rottweilers and my German Shepard?

~~~
lixtra
You will be left with your dogs dead even if you are innocent.

~~~
charlieflowers
If they come to my house and hurt my dogs, that is not going to end well.

~~~
maxxxxx
True. It won't end well for the dogs.

------
xte
Canada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be
surprised. Canadians are NOT citizen, they are, formally, subjects of her
majesty the queen.

In continental Europe such an action is simply illegal: only officers can
enter a home, only with justice permission or for danger-life situation. Also
any IT device can't be sized looking for digital proof, they must be imaged
locally with image given to the defendant with relative hashes and a proper
chain of custody. Of course sometime police forgot doing that and in MANY
cases any proof became simply invalid in court.

Dear "citizens" freedom does not came from "ether" and stay forever, must be
conquered and kept. Business as usual and classic Chomsky frog principle are
the best weapon few people have to shift between representative government to
corporatocracy.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Canada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be
> surprised.

It is not a protectorate of the UK crown, it is a separate constitutional
monarchy that happens to have the same sovereign as the UK; like most
similarly-situated ex-British states (and Britain itself), the substantive
form of government is a representative democracy.

~~~
OJFord
And further, having a monarchy (or even being "a \"protectorate\" of [a]
crown") says nothing of the legality of private companies searching citizens
homes...

~~~
xte
Sorry for my poor English, not my motherlanguage. You are right being a
monarchy says nothing of the legality of private companies searching citizens
homes. However being a monarchy means NOT being citizens, peer between peers
and thet's a very very very important thing that may justify anything else.

Symbols are symbols but still have their importance.

~~~
Lio
English may not be your first language but you clearly are not in possession
of how constitutional monarchies work.

Even in the UK British people _are_ citizens, so could you please stop
repeating this nonsense? [https://www.gov.uk/check-british-
citizen](https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen)

Canada has it's own rules on citizenship and you can find them here:
[https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-
citizenship/se...](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-
citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship.html)

------
latchkey
I know we are supposed to be all up in arms about his rights and certainly
that is a big issue, but at the same time... he was running a questionable /
edgy website... "he took a laissez-faire approach to policing which addons
made it onto his site."

At some level, given the history of previous issues like this, what did he
expect?

~~~
throw2016
Yet corporates seem to routinely take a 'laissez-faire' approach to policing
and get away with it. No one is banging on Google's or Uber's door with
orders.

Businesses seem to get away with more, protected by law and due process, and
with recourse to lobby and challenge and even if found guilty merely fined
while individuals lives can be turned upside down, with processes and records
that have far reaching consequences.

There seems to be a fundamental imbalance at work here.

~~~
brokenmachine
It brings to mind that recent case of a Facebook user who posted a recent
movie on Facebook which was downloaded 6 million times!

The uploader is facing prison, but Facebook is seemingly above reproach.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18004544](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18004544)

------
axilmar
In my humble opinion, this guy deserved what happened to him, which was
justified in its entirety.

He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of information for
enjoying content without permission from authors of said content.

Also, in my humble opinion, this should cover anyone that provides links,
including search engines.

Furthermore, again in my humble opinion, copyrights should be permanent, and I
really see no reason why someone should stop enjoying the success of their
creation as long as their creation is popular. If there is demand for
something, why shall it not produce profit?

~~~
bleuarff
Permanent copyright? So you're saying your great-grandchildren should be
entitled to reap the benefits of something they did not create and has nothing
to do with them, long after the death of the original creator?

~~~
Asooka
Permanent copyright might in the end be a good thing, because it's so
completely unworkable in real life, that we'll be forced to put in place
enough exceptions as to make copyright in its current form extinct.

