I think the ruling is that they are not required to, but it does not say they are forbidden to.
Assuming their TOS says they reserve the right to share such information in response to subpoenas / their whims, I'm not sure there would be much recourse unless there's some law forbidding this.
AGs can only enforce laws and regulations that are on the books. Being a monopoly doesn’t give AGs some sort of arbitrary control over them. So which law or regulation would they enforce, exactly? It might help if you cited a specific code that says they cannot divulge subscriber information.
If they violated their own policy, sure. But not every disclosure of customer information is prohibited by policy. The policy should be clear as to what the holder may do and what they won't.
Would have to read thru Tittle II of the communications act and see what portions they are under. Title I is POTs and Title II is ISPs and Cellphone providers. Title I tends to be much more strict.
Remember that under the last reign of the current present, information services were removed from Title II regulation. Biden did vote to restore the net neutrality status last year but that was challenged in court and never went into effect. It was ultimately overturned in January and we're left without net neutrality protections.
How does that apply? In this case the companies sending subpoenas are saying "who was using IP address w.x.y.z at 10:15am on June 15?". How would ECPA apply, since IIRC, it covers requirements for law enforcement to collect data from telecoms?
Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is, but in practice no one would follow up on those.
> Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is
Not true.
Technically, you are allowed to ignore ANY DMCA takedown. However, if you don't ignore it, and if you otherwise would have been guilty of copyright infringement for hosting the user-provided content at issue, then following the DMCA takedown request will immunize you (that's why it is called a "safe harbor" provision), so, if you aren't 100% certain that it's not wrong, you have a strong motive to respect it.
If the DMCA takedown request was actually fraudulent, then either there was no potentially violating material or the requester wasn't the copyright holder or their agent, so you had no liability to them to immunize against. So you absolute can ignore it as much as you want.
But what is the recourse if IAPs in the 9th district ignore the decision and continue to divulge subscriber information?
I assume subscribers must sue the IAP.
I think the ruling is that they are not required to, but it does not say they are forbidden to.
Assuming their TOS says they reserve the right to share such information in response to subpoenas / their whims, I'm not sure there would be much recourse unless there's some law forbidding this.
Contact your state attorney general is also an option.
And demand what, exactly? And under what law?
AG oversees utilities and are granted regulatory powers because they are effectively monopolies.
Explain clearly and reasonably your claim and you will likely see action and response.
AGs can only enforce laws and regulations that are on the books. Being a monopoly doesn’t give AGs some sort of arbitrary control over them. So which law or regulation would they enforce, exactly? It might help if you cited a specific code that says they cannot divulge subscriber information.
Usually they would go after them for deceptive business practices due to violating their own privacy policy.
If they violated their own policy, sure. But not every disclosure of customer information is prohibited by policy. The policy should be clear as to what the holder may do and what they won't.
I don't think there is any law in the US that ISPs can't give away or sell your data if they want to.
Several states have privacy laws limiting or requiring disclosure of how their data is used.
If I understand correctly the FTC only prevents companies from selling your data when they've told you they won't.
Would have to read thru Tittle II of the communications act and see what portions they are under. Title I is POTs and Title II is ISPs and Cellphone providers. Title I tends to be much more strict.
Remember that under the last reign of the current present, information services were removed from Title II regulation. Biden did vote to restore the net neutrality status last year but that was challenged in court and never went into effect. It was ultimately overturned in January and we're left without net neutrality protections.
Electronic communications privacy act, to start.
How does that apply? In this case the companies sending subpoenas are saying "who was using IP address w.x.y.z at 10:15am on June 15?". How would ECPA apply, since IIRC, it covers requirements for law enforcement to collect data from telecoms?
This is why the IAP I worked at 15 years ago took every unmasking subpoena and routed them to the trash. I was so proud of that.
You can't just ignore a subpoena if you value not being in jail. You have to argue that you don't have to answer it.
None of them were ever followed up with. So while you're correct in theory, in practice the consequences of it were nonexistent.
Likely because the firm knows that the subpoena that they're sending you is bullshit in the first place. They don't actually want the legal challenge.
Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is, but in practice no one would follow up on those.
> Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is
Not true.
Technically, you are allowed to ignore ANY DMCA takedown. However, if you don't ignore it, and if you otherwise would have been guilty of copyright infringement for hosting the user-provided content at issue, then following the DMCA takedown request will immunize you (that's why it is called a "safe harbor" provision), so, if you aren't 100% certain that it's not wrong, you have a strong motive to respect it.
If the DMCA takedown request was actually fraudulent, then either there was no potentially violating material or the requester wasn't the copyright holder or their agent, so you had no liability to them to immunize against. So you absolute can ignore it as much as you want.
Well thank god corporations can’t be jailed /s