In article <telecom24.163.2@telecom-digest.org>, Lisa Minter
<lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its
> customers, or notified his client that her information had been given
> to an outside party, Lybeck said. "Comcast should respect the
> rights of privacy who pay them monthly bills," Lybeck said.
> Representatives from Comcast said they could not immediately comment
> on the lawsuit.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If, in fact, Comcast was legally subpoened
> for the information, then they _had_ to give it out, or face penalties
> themselves. I assume that is the case,
Why do you assume that, when the article clearly says "But no court
authorized Comcast to release names and addresses"?
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason I assume that, Barry, is
because otherwise there are inconsistencies in the report. We know
that the recording industry is very fond of blind lawsuits; i.e.
John Doe 1 through John Doe 1^19 and every John Doe in between. They
say that is needed since ISP's will not help them without _first
suing and obtaining a subpoena_. I believe they did the same thing
in this case. If they didn't, how did they arrive at her name, by
asking Comcast 'pretty please'? I know what the article said, but
somehow I feel the reporter was misinformed by the lady's lawyer and
did not investigate further. After all, the recording people had no
way of knowing that Comcast would just turn over; no other ISP's to
date have cooperated. And once the subpoena is there, that's all the
'authorization' Comcast needed, right? PAT]
Barry Margolin (barmar@alum.mit.edu)