Re: Cyberspace critics take aim at Philip (Philip Services Corp)
The Hamilton Spectator
Saturday, July 11, 1998
page D8
Cyberspace critics take aim at Philip
by David Akin, dakin@ham.southam.ca
Philip Services Corp.'s attempt to silence cyberspace critics provoked immediate reaction yesterday in the very forum it seeks to censor.
Philip has used courts in California and Hamilton to force Yahoo! Inc. and several Internet service providers to release information that helped Philip identify the pseudonymous authors of what Philip claims are defamatory messages posted to an Internet chat board operated by Yahoo.
"(Philip) is now conducting another witchhunt", wrote one participant, writing under the pseudonym Countbuster68. Philip has petitioned the courts to learn CountBuster's identity.
CountBuster68 said in a post that he was unable to post as CountBuster and so assumed the new alias of CountBuster68.
"It shows how PHV's management efforts is unrewarding toward its shareholders", wrote invest108, an alias for another participant. "Instead of concentrating on keeping the company alive, it is continuing to engage in interfering with the principle of our rights to freedom of expression and privacy. All this energy expended in a direction which has little to do with building share holders wealth, will just erode the stock price down further."
Another participant in the forum, writing under the alias tsmith9500, applauded Philip's actions.
"This particular site has become the most vicious and unuseful place for investment knowledge that I visit", wrote tsmith9500. "With the actions that (Philip has) taken, perhaps now some of these people will think before acting. I sure hope so."
Many of those who contribute to the Yahoo! message board were disappointed that Yahoo! and their Internet service providers didn't fight harder to protect their online identities.
"Who will be the first ISP to say we will fight for our clients right to privacy until the bitter end?" wrote vf500. "If your ISP easily hands out information, you should terminate them ... Are there even any who will stand up now and fight?"
Copyright ¸ 1998 by The Hamilton Spectator. All Rights Reserved.
efc.ca
=====
The Hamilton Spectator
Wednesday, July 15, 1998
page C5
Net providers' privacy dilemma
Weslink opposed Philip court order, NetAccess didn't
by David Akin, dakin@ham.southam.ca
As Philip Services Corp. closes in on the identity of anonymous cyberantagonists, there are new questions about the degree to which Internet service providers should fight for the privacy rights of their subscribers.
Yesterday, NetAccess Systems Inc. of Hamilton confirmed that it received and complied with a court order for information identifying one of its subscribers.
Weslink Datalink Corp. of Hamilton also complied with a similar order, but not before putting up a fight.
The court order, issued to NetAccess, Weslink, and other Internet service providers at the request of Philip Services Corp., asked for details about certain subscribers who had posted what Philip says are defamatory, threatening messages to a Yahoo! message board. The messages on the Yahoo! site are signed only by aliases such as Skeptic666 and CountBuster.
Philip has filed some sweeping lawsuits in both Ontario and California alleging that the anonymous critics threatened to hurt employees; that they defamed senior managers; and they sexually harassed female executives.
To continue with its lawsuits, Philip must identify the anonymous cyberantagonists. Its first step toward that goal was to subpoena Yahoo! Inc. for some details about the times and dates the offensive messages were posted.
Then, in Ontario, California, and soon in Virginia, it asked Internet service providers for usage logs which, when matched up with the information Yahoo! provided, would yield an Internet e-mail account.
To get the information it needed, Philip had an Ontario court issue eight orders which went to NetAccess, Weslink, AOL Canada Inc. of Toronto, iSTAR Inc. of Ottawa, and four other southern Ontario providers.
Each order asked, in essence, for information about an individual subscriber or subscribers but they also contained instructions to each Internet service provider that they could not communicate the existence of such an order to either the affected subscriber or to anyone else.
In other words, the Internet service providers were forced to reveal personal information about customers but not tell anyone that they had done so.
NetAccess complied with the order as it was presented to them.
"It's a very difficult position to be in because it's very hard to control what your users are going to put on sites like the discussion forum that was in Yahoo!", said NetAccess general manager Gary Bannister. "There's all kinds of questions about what rights you have to do that."
Other Internet service providers have also provided some information, although the company is still waiting for parts of the court order to be complied with.
American Online Inc. of Dulles, Va., the parent company of AOL Canada Inc., said yesterday it has provided no information to Philip about any of its subscribers and has not yet been served with any court orders.
To this point, it appears that Weslink is the only service provider to fight the original court order.
And while the court did not entirely agree with Weslink's application to set aside the original court order, the court did modify the original order to allow Weslink to tell the affected subscriber what was going on.
That affected subscriber was none other than former Hamilton politician John Gallagher, who quickly cried foul for what he claims are violation of his privacy rights. "We're very cognizant of the fact of our customers' privacy -- and that goes for any business. That's paramount", said Weslink general manager Randy Bastarache. "But what's also paramount is obeying the law. In our particular case, the law said you can't hide behind anonymity."
Internet service providers have no legal obligation to protect anyone's privacy, although many say they will protect some information as a matter of business policy.
Yahoo!'s and NetAccess' privacy policies are similar to those throughout the industry: Personal information will remain confidential until a court order compels a provider to disclose it. "We don't give out names, address, phone numbers, or who our users are to anybody under any circumstances -- unless we're compelled to by law", Bannister said.
NetAccess, in fact, goes further than some in explicitly warning users that they, not NetAccess, should take appropriate security measures if they wish to guarantee anonymity or protection of e-mail messages or transmission data.
-----
(Sidebar)
Net Access
Privacy Policies
NetAccess Inc. of Hamilton is one of as many as six Internet service providers to be ordered to divulge information about its subscribers. The court order was made at the request of Philip Services Corp., which believes it has been defamed by some users of regional and national Internet service providers.
Here are some excerpts from the NetAccess policy statement at: info.nas.net
NetAccess' privacy policies are similar in philosophy to many others in the Internet industry.
-- NetAccess exercises no control over the content of the information passing through it. NetAccess may, however, for technical purposes, monitor usage including reviewing some or all information transmitted through its facilities.
-- The facilities of NetAccess may only be used for lawful purposes. Transmission or storage of any material in violation of any federal, provincial, or local regulation is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, copyrighted material, material legally judged to be threatening, obscene, or material protected by trade secret.
-- NetAccess clients are expected to demonstrate proper respect for other individuals on the Internet. NetAccess neither condones nor permits a use of NetAccess services which can be construed as "harassment" in any way. This includes, but is not limited to, spamming, flaming, etc.
-- While every reasonable effort is made to ensure the privacy of your material, NetAccess does not guarantee privacy of your data, e-mail, or transmissions. For those to whom privacy is a vital issue, we advise that they be knowledgeable in the methods they can use such as encryption to ensure privacy.
Source: NetAccess Inc.
Copyright ¸ 1998 by The Hamilton Spectator. All Rights Reserved.
efc.ca
=====
The Hamilton Spectator
Friday, July 17, 1998
Philip to make defamation case public
by David Akin, dakin@ham.southam.ca
Philip Services Corp. is in a Hamilton courtroom this morning presenting its first public evidence of what it says is a sustained campaign of harassment and defamation against its employees.
The alleged defamation took place on an Internet message board operated by Yahoo Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif.
Philip has filed two defamation suits, one in California on June 4 and a second one in Ontario June 24. Details about the Ontario suit were sealed by court order on Philip's request.
Today, Philip is asking a judge to unseal that file. The Spectator is also making a separate but similar request.
Philip has served notice on seven people it believes may become defendants of the suit. None of those individuals has been identified.
Yahoo operates several so-called computer message boards, where investors and others can trade information about a company. Until earlier this year, the discussion on the Philip message board was largely legitimate discussion and criticism of the company.
Since February, though, the company alleges that hundreds of posts have gone beyond legitimate criticism.
On March 2, for example, a message from someone using the alias CountBuster said: "(Philip) is BreX with a little pollution, corruption, and organized crime to boot."
Another refers to Philip officials having "drug cash to launder". Many others speculate on the sex habits of senior managers.
"The defendants in this action have published more than 800 messages on the Yahoo! Message Board ... harassing (Philip) employees by invading their privacy, stalking them, defaming them, (and) injuring their relations with their employer", Philip says in its notice of motion before Ontario Court (General Division) Justice Walter Stayshyn this morning.
To preserve evidence that may be needed in a future trial, Philip is asking Stayshyn to order defendants not to erase their computer hard drives, computer printouts, or floppy disks.
Today's proceedings come as the company seeks to recover from a copper trading scandal that cost it millions of dollars and precipitated the crash of its stock. Philip's share price hit an all-time low of $3.65 in mid-day trading yesterday on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The proceedings are also significant for Internet users.
The methods Philip is using in its suit raise new questions about the rights and responsibilities of Internet service providers, online content providers, and those who seek to preserve their anonymity on the Internet. Some critics say Philip's actions are tantamount to censorship and stifle free speech. Others say Philip is right to pursue those it says defamed it on the Internet and that individuals should be held responsible for what they say, even in cyberspace.
Canadian courts have limited experience with freedom of speech on the Internet, particularly in civil matters such as libel and slander. Several Internet service providers and one software firm were required by the court to provide information about their customers or employees. Those orders were issued behind closed doors June 24 and forbade the firms under the order from telling their customers about them.
Those Internet service providers are NetAccess Systems Inc. of Hamilton, Weslink Datalink Corp. of Hamilton, AOL Canada Inc. of Toronto, Golden Triangle Online of Kitchener, InterServ of Seattle, Wash., iStar Internet Inc. of Ottawa, Software AG Systems (Canada) Inc. of Cambridge, Focus Technologies Networks of Mississauga, and R.D. Nickel and Associates of Cambridge.
Philip says, in an affidavit filed in support of today's court proceedings, that it has not yet received all the information it required of those firms. Golden Triangle Online, NetAccess Systems Inc., Weslink Datalink Corp., and Software AG Systems have complied with the orders.
Focus Technologies and R.D. Nickel and Associates are now associated with or are part of Software AG Systems.
InterServ no longer exists.
The order to iStar Internet has been partially complied with, Philip says in its affidavit.
Philip has been informed that the information it required from AOL Canada Inc.'s must be obtained from its parent firm, America Online Inc. of Dulles, Va. Philip is seeking that information through the U.S. court system.
America Online has not received a court order nor has it provided any information about its subscribers.
Philip says information it receives from America Online will help it reveal the identity of CountBuster, who Philip believes, along with Sceptic666, to be among the worst offenders.
Philip has served notice on seven of its anonymous adversaries. Their identities have not been made public.
Former Hamilton alderman John Gallagher said yesterday he had received notice from Philip. Former Philip employee Michael Hilson received a similar notice from Philip.
Gallagher has admitted he used several pseudonyms to post messages on the Yahoo board.
He said yesterday he will not be in court this morning and does not plan to oppose Philip's request to unseal the court file.
Copyright ¸ 1998 by The Hamilton Spectator. All Rights Reserved.
efc.ca |
