Consumer Privacy Protection Act

[trapstir]

Maybe were not approaching this the right way. I have found a few bills dealing with Consumer Privacy Protection. This one stuck with me.
S.2606
sec.106. DISCLOSURE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF UNDER COURT ORDER.

(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, an Internet service provider, online service provider, operator of a commercial website, or third party that uses such a service of website to collect information about users of that service or website may disclose personally indentifiable information about a user of that service or website--

(1) to a law enforcement agency in response to a warrant issued under a Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, or a court order issued in accordance with subsection (c); and

(2) in response to a court order in a civil proceeding granted upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means if--

(A) the user to whom the information relates is given reasonable notice by the person seeking the information of the court proceeding at which the order is requested; and

(B) that user is afforded a reasonable opportunity to appear and contest the issuance of requested order or to narrow its scope.

The bottomline here is, I was not notified that my personal information was being turned over to an Attorney or to DirectV. I received a letter from the Attorney, but it did not provide the Site or the Items I purchased. But reading this makes me think Our Rights have been violated as consumers. Let me Know what you guys think!

[rudeNY]

Is that U.S.law or Canada law?

[MadAtDTV]

It currently is not a law. It is one version of a bill currently
going around the House and the Senate. Read here for more:

PCWorld Article (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,98944,00.asp)

Privacy Links (http://www.privacyrights.org/links.htm#legal)

[trapstir]

It's a shame when a person can get sued over an item that was sold over the internet for a few years freely. Then all of a sudden the Item is deamed illegal by one group. The person that bought it then has to prove he did'nt use it illegaly. What protects the consumer from these types of acts, makes you think twice about internet purchasing. Why is the Burden of proof on the Consumer and not on DTV? What give's them the right to use your legal purchase againist you? You probably paid tax's on the things.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Trapstir,

You have the wrong idea here sir. You do NOT have to prove your innocence rather they HAVE to prove your guilt. And because they call an ISO-7816 programmer illegal does NOT mean it is.

People are just taking this lying down and I don't understand it. If the fee they require is low enough then it may pay economically to pay or settle but now that they have raised the anti to $3500.00 people would be crazy to settle.

They have no proof of wrongdoing and anything they say will be entirely circumstantial. Well the fact is that most people can make a similar case that shows they did not do it.

If they can PROVE that you did something, let them prove it but HOW can they do that when you did not. They have no proof and it takes very little to prove the opposite, that you could not have done what they say. All you need is to show that its more likely that you did not than what they have to show that you did.

An invoice for an ISO-7816 programmer is NO SUCH PROOF.

If people decide to pay them to avoid a hassle or for some other reason, that is their business but to assume that a person would be found guilty on the flimsy "evidence" of a sales invoice for a lawful product is totally nuts.

Probably 90% of the people they are accusing would never lose in court. And those who did steal and reduced a sub when they purchased probably have no defence and should pay. The point is that only people who DID what they claim and thus have no defence should pay and nobody else should. If you have no DirecTV® sub or system or purchased cash N carry have no record of anything with DirecTV® and thus they cannot monitor any usage. And with the invoice alone they will go nowhere.

Simply bring a smart card teacher from a local university who can testify that this is NOT an illegal or contraband product and you testify that you never used it to steal at all. In fact you may never have got it working.

The testimony of a "qualified expert" cannot be questioned by the court (it must be accepted) and there is no "guilt by association" in America. What I mean is that even if the vendor was involved in piracy that is NOT proof of any wrongdoing by you.

Talk to a descent lawyer because this is all you need to blow them off.

Now if you had a sub and reduced that around the time you bought the programmer and your Mom cancelled her sub that week too, then your cases is dramatically weakened. But only the BUYER of a product knows the details and if you did not do anything wrong its very unlikely you would be found guilty with a minimum of planning and a local school "expert". This is such a new field that virtually anyone giving approved courses on smart cards would be accepted as an epert in court. And he can talk of the legitimacy of such a product in the market. If you did NOT have a program to modify a card (which is rerequired) and did not even get it working, and did not steal programming, then why would you admit to that an pay one cent. Almost any good lawyer will fight a good case but he wont let you testify that you did not do this, if you told him that you DID. that is not allowed ethically and most lawyers are very ethical. So do not try to pull a fast one but if you know that there is NO proof that you stole, then your case is virtually sure to be won.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

The threats are really meaningless, unless they are true.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Trapstir,

You have the wrong idea here sir. You do NOT have to prove your innocence rather they HAVE to prove your guilt. And because they call an ISO-7816 programmer illegal does NOT mean it is.

People are just taking this lying down and I don't understand it. If the fee they require is low enough then it may pay economically to pay or settle but now that they have raised the anti to $3500.00 people would be crazy to settle.

They have no proof of wrongdoing and anything they say will be entirely circumstantial. Well the fact is that most people can make a similar case that shows they did not do it.

If they can PROVE that you did something, let them prove it but HOW can they do that when you did not. They have no proof and it takes very little to prove the opposite, that you could not have done what they say. All you need is to show that its more likely that you did not than what they have to show that you did.

An invoice for an ISO-7816 programmer is NO SUCH PROOF.

If people decide to pay them to avoid a hassle or for some other reason, that is their business but to assume that a person would be found guilty on the flimsy "evidence" of a sales invoice for a lawful product is totally nuts.

Probably 90% of the people they are accusing would never lose in court. And those who did steal and reduced a sub when they purchased probably have no defence and should pay. The point is that only people who DID what they claim and thus have no defence should pay and nobody else should. If you have no DirecTV® sub or system or purchased cash N carry have no record of anything with DirecTV® and thus they cannot monitor any usage. And with the invoice alone they will go nowhere.

Simply bring a smart card teacher from a local university who can testify that this is NOT an illegal or contraband product and you testify that you never used it to steal at all. In fact you may never have got it working.

The testimony of a "qualified expert" cannot be questioned by the court (it must be accepted) and there is no "guilt by association" in America. What I mean is that even if the vendor was involved in piracy that is NOT proof of any wrongdoing by you.

Talk to a descent lawyer because this is all you need to blow them off.

Now if you had a sub and reduced that around the time you bought the programmer and your Mom cancelled her sub that week too, then your cases is dramatically weakened. But only the BUYER of a product knows the details and if you did not do anything wrong its very unlikely you would be found guilty with a minimum of planning and a local school "expert". This is such a new field that virtually anyone giving approved courses on smart cards would be accepted as an epert in court. And he can talk of the legitimacy of such a product in the market. If you did NOT have a program to modify a card (which is rerequired) and did not even get it working, and did not steal programming, then why would you admit to that an pay one cent. Almost any good lawyer will fight a good case but he wont let you testify that you did not do this, if you told him that you DID. that is not allowed ethically and most lawyers are very ethical. So do not try to pull a fast one but if you know that there is NO proof that you stole, then your case is virtually sure to be won.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

The threats are really meaningless, unless they are true AND THEY CAN PROVE IT. That is why there is a discovery process to find out WHAT EVIDENCE (not innuendo) they HAVE. That is a normal part of the process and they have to state exactly what they have when you ask. This is a process that takes place in writing between the lawyers and they cannot BLUFF there.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Trapstir,

You have the wrong idea here sir. You do NOT have to prove your innocence rather they HAVE to prove your guilt. And because they call an ISO-7816 programmer illegal does NOT mean it is.

People are just taking this lying down and I don't understand it. If the fee they require is low enough then it may pay economically to pay or settle but now that they have raised the anti to $3500.00 people would be crazy to settle.

They have no proof of wrongdoing and anything they say will be entirely circumstantial. Well the fact is that most people can make a similar case that shows they did not do it.

If they can PROVE that you did something, let them prove it but HOW can they do that when you did not. They have no proof and it takes very little to prove the opposite, that you could not have done what they say. All you need is to show that its more likely that you did not than what they have to show that you did.

An invoice for an ISO-7816 programmer is NO SUCH PROOF.

If people decide to pay them to avoid a hassle or for some other reason, that is their business but to assume that a person would be found guilty on the flimsy "evidence" of a sales invoice for a lawful product is totally nuts.

Probably 90% of the people they are accusing would never lose in court. And those who did steal and reduced a sub when they purchased probably have no defence and should pay. The point is that only people who DID what they claim and thus have no defence should pay and nobody else should. If you have no DirecTV® sub or system or purchased cash N carry have no record of anything with DirecTV® and thus they cannot monitor any usage. And with the invoice alone they will go nowhere.

Simply bring a smart card teacher from a local university who can testify that this is NOT an illegal or contraband product and you testify that you never used it to steal at all. In fact you may never have got it working.

The testimony of a "qualified expert" cannot be questioned by the court (it must be accepted) and there is no "guilt by association" in America. What I mean is that even if the vendor was involved in piracy that is NOT proof of any wrongdoing by you.

Talk to a descent lawyer because this is all you need to blow them off.

Now if you had a sub and reduced that around the time you bought the programmer and your Mom cancelled her sub that week too, then your cases is dramatically weakened. But only the BUYER of a product knows the details and if you did not do anything wrong its very unlikely you would be found guilty with a minimum of planning and a local school "expert". This is such a new field that virtually anyone giving approved courses on smart cards would be accepted as an epert in court. And he can talk of the legitimacy of such a product in the market. If you did NOT have a program to modify a card (which is rerequired) and did not even get it working, and did not steal programming, then why would you admit to that an pay one cent. Almost any good lawyer will fight a good case but he wont let you testify that you did not do this, if you told him that you DID. that is not allowed ethically and most lawyers are very ethical. So do not try to pull a fast one but if you know that there is NO proof that you stole, then your case is virtually sure to be won.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

The threats are really meaningless, unless they are true AND THEY CAN PROVE IT. That is why there is a discovery process to find out WHAT EVIDENCE (not innuendo) they HAVE. That is a normal part of the process and they have to state exactly what they have when you ask. This is a process that takes place in writing between the lawyers and they cannot BLUFF there like they do with the letter.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/rotate_rib.gif
To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CENSORSHIP BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!