15 ms·

Canadian cable companies interrogate, search Montréal software developer

317 points by na85 9y ago

brndnmtthws 9y ago
People should try to film/record these interactions whenever possible.
- FrancoisBosun 9y ago
  His phone was seized... he couldn't have filmed even if he had wanted to. Besides, 16 hours, nothing I own would film for that long without changing something.
  - JabavuAdams 9y ago
    He didn't have to give up his phone. The searching parties need the resident's permission. They can threaten contempt of court, but they can't otherwise just barge in and take stuff.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dlb_ 9y ago
  Interrogations/Depositions of civil lawsuits are always recorded by a stenographer and become public record as far as I know.
na85 9y ago
That agents of private corporations can be granted the authority to conduct searches and interrogations is chilling. Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the state grants law enforcement powers to corporations in order to defend outdated business models and protect profit.
- slaymaker1907 9y ago
  I don't know why this was down voted, I was honestly thinking the same exact thing.
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    It's downvoted because its precisely wrong - the court ruled the search was outside the bounds of the law, and threw out the case. People fuck up all the time, but here, the system worked exactly the way GP wants it to. Certainly the ISPs are at fault here, but the Canadian court system seems to be working just fine. The existence of the Anton Piller concept is troubling, still.
    - bragh 9y ago
      A correct system disallows abuse to happen in the first place. I would draw a parallel to buggy software, that loses the trust of its users. I feel that the same thing can happen to a legal system: and then what will happen?
    - na85 9y ago
      It still happened, even if "corrected" post-hoc. The fact that the cable companies asking for the power to detain and search a private citizen weren't laughed out of the building by law enforcement is what's troubling to me.
- jitix 9y ago
  Exactly! this is terrifying. The law should be exercised by neutral parties, not the plaintiff. This is the equivalent of you being able to imprison a person in your house because they stole something from you.
fwsgonzo 9y ago
I am baffled. That is some seriously dangerous lawmaking. Essentially a corporation was given the go ahead to gather evidence, in a private citizens house, for its own case. I don't see how this event can be twisted into any other story.
komali2 9y ago
Holy shit, terrifying. The article mentions that the developer was threatened with contempt of court if he didn't answer questions, didn't give up his passwords, etc. I subscribe to the "you can be the rap but not the heat" mentality - if he had kept his mouth shut, even if the bailiff hauled him off to jail that day, a week later he'd have been let out, email and social media intact and whatever other information he revealed in a 16 hour interrogation safe.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  Does he have a day job? This always seems like an easy decision from 10 miles away, if the police/bailiff/whatever are threatening to take you to jail wrongly you hold your ground and get let out anyway, right? That works great when missing a day or more of work isn't going to end up with you getting fired, even if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    If you get fired for not handing over your personal information to the government after being wrongfully detained then, depending on your country, you have a potential lawsuit on your hands
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      When it comes to employment, the law only matters if you can afford to forgo income from that particular employer, and if you can afford the lawyers. For many people, if they don't have another stream of income or support from family or friends, it's effectively useless to them.
      - kakarot 9y ago
        My integrity in the face of tyranny and the future of my country is worth more than my livelihood. Each and every time someone bends to the will of the police state like this, it makes them a little bit stronger.
megous 9y ago
Lot of power being used for copyright enforcement lately. Yesterday it was NSA, now this. How much time until we see military getting involved?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  In the end, property laws are the only really important laws for capitalist so be ready for them to lobby for more laws and enforcement in that direction.
  - pitaj 9y ago
    Intellectual property isn't real property, though. Which makes it even scarier, like "thought police" scary.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Intellectual property isn't real property, though Do you mean intellectually property isn't really property, or do you mean intellectually property doesn't consist of estates in land (“real property”.) The latter is obviously true, but hard to see it's relevance; the former is false. IP is no less property than any other form of intangible personal property.
      - devrandomguy 9y ago
        Sure it is, it is a completely different thing. The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. But it does not, it just tries it's best to model an idealized version of reality. This really starts to become apparent where legal English diverges from dictionary or common English.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. IP isn't thoughts and concepts, it's expressions and concrete applications, and “property” is a legal relationship; human laws don't define reality, but they do define legal relationships.
samfriedman 9y ago
The article states that the court order used in this case is something called an Anton Piller order [0]. Its intended use seems to be for cases where the defendant is known to possess incriminating material they are in imminent danger of destroying, and have caused serious damage to the plaintiff. It also seems that an independent lawyer is required in these cases to explain the order to the defendant and handle the collected material. The judge apparently ruled the use of the order unlawful after the fact, so I'd hope that the poor guy is entitled to some sort of compensation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada
- jostmey 9y ago
  If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already have all the proof you need. The law is an oxymoron and dangerous.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already have all the proof you need. Knowing that someone has evidence isn't the same thing as having that evidence.
  - am1988 9y ago
    He took confidential documents is a hard claim to verify if they end up destroyed before the trial. by your logic would a search order ever be required?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> On June 9, the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice, to search for and seize relevant evidence before it can be destroyed. A Federal Court judge would later declare the Anton Piller order in this case "unlawful," but that was weeks after a group of men arrived at Lackman's door... Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence [1]. Curious if such a law would pass Constitutional muster in the United States. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- DarkKomunalec 9y ago
  One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence, so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Or maybe not. Maybe those responsible will be held accountable, and face jail-time for effectively holding someone prisoner, breaking into their home, and stealing their belongings, albeit with the dubious stamp of approval of a judge. I wouldn't hold my breath.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    > so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer. If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
DarkKomunalec 9y ago
"Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. "Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman." I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you really be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?
- Canada 9y ago
  The article is terrible. Who exactly coerced Lackman to answer arbitrary questions? Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Who threatened Lackman with contempt or court? I've known the parties to a couple of Anton Piller orders and I don't believe there was any questioning. Anton Piller orders are essentially a civil search warrant to seize evidence. Go in, take the items sought by force if necessary and hand them to an independent lawyer who will keep them. The defendant or someone representing it if it's a corporation has to be there to witness it and be given an inventory of what's taken. There's no scope for questioning anyone.
  - scrabble 9y ago
    The article said that a judge ruled the search unlawful after the fact, and one of the reasons for that was because of the questioning -- so I'm not surprised there was no questioning in the cases you are familiar with since they may have been carried out correctly.
    - giarc 9y ago
      My interpretation was that the questioning was unlawful since they asked about other companies that might be selling these android boxes. They were supposed to limit questions to his particular case.
  - developer2 9y ago
    >> Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Personally, this is the part that really scares me. The majority of us Canadians do not have personal lawyers. If this happened to me, I'd be stuck trying to find a lawyer for the first time. I'm sure the thugs entering my home would seize my computers and phone immediately, and refuse to allow me to use them to look up and contact a lawyer. Due to the seizure, I'd be unable to find representation. What do you do at that point?
joshuaheard 9y ago
A "civil search warrant"? Fortunately, we have no such thing in the U.S. And since it appears he wasn't allowed to leave, it was effectively a "civil arrest warrant" as well.
- stan_rogers 9y ago
  You only think you don't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#Raids_and_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#R...
  - ameister14 9y ago
    "Accompanied by Scientology lawyers, federal marshals made several raids on the homes of individuals who were accused of posting Scientology's copyrighted materials to the newsgroup." That's different than the scientology lawyers going alone.
    - endorphone 9y ago
      There was a bailiff and independent counsel there as representatives of the court, so they weren't alone in this case. This action is so rare that they obviously had no clue what the limits were, though.
      - reactor4 9y ago
        The limits and the penalties for overstepping are getting clearer: http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-documents-celanese-v-murray-demolition/ http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-do...
- halostatue 9y ago
  The U.S. has “impoundment orders”, which are fundamentally the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment_orders_in_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment...
bww 9y ago
This is how the civil courts system works in Canada? Agents of a corporation are permitted by law to search a private citizen's home, seize property, detain him against his will, and deny him access to his lawyer for 16 hours? Even if they overstepped their authority in this particular case, that there is any case where some version of this is legal is absolutely unconscionable.
- giarc 9y ago
  From what I read the problem with this specific case was they over stayed their welcome (they were given 12 hours and took 18) and that they tried to gather info on other cases (were supposed to stay within the case at hand). So everything else seems ok... which blows my mind.
- Raphmedia 9y ago
  The Anton Piller order does not gives the right to the agents of the corporation to enter the citizen's home. The citizen can still refuse. The order is ordering the civilian to allow the agents to enter his home. You can refuse. However, by refusing you very likely become guilty of contempt of Court. As for the "deny access to his lawyer" the law says : "The defendants have a right to contact their lawyer within a reasonable amount of time". There is however a supervising lawyer present during the search. This lawyer is neutral to the case and is there to take note of what has been seized or searched. (Not a lawyer.)
- am1988 9y ago
  No. What they did was beyond the bounds of this type of order. Americans should get off your "FREEDOM" high horse until you reduce your prison population to something sane.
  - plandis 9y ago
    You know it's possible, as an individual, to be critical of this and, for example, prison population.
    - 9y ago
jostmey 9y ago
"...civil search warrant..." That phrase sends chills up my spine. Does it mean a civilian organization can obtain a search warrant in Canada?
- aroberge 9y ago
  Perhaps it is based on the fact that Quebec law is known in French as the "Code civil" as opposed to the English-based "Common law" and so, would have little to do with what the English speaking world know as "civil cases".
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    No, this Anton Piller thingy has originated in Common Law BUT the Quebec Court of Appeal has "accepted" it in Civil Law, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...
    - reactor4 9y ago
      I found something interesting at paragraph 109 of citation #21 (https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...) Je crois bon de préciser ici que les personnes à qui l'ordonnance a été signifiée auraient pu refuser de fournir les informations demandées. Devant un tel refus, Groupe AST (1993) inc. n'aurait pu insister davantage, mais aurait dû plutôt utiliser la procédure d'outrage au tribunal pour faire valoir ses droits. Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier indiquant que Groupe AST (1993) inc. aurait obtenu les informations par la force, après un premier refus. Si tel avait été le cas, il y aurait eu lieu d'annuler l'existence de l'ordonnance Anton Piller, vu que ses limites auraient été dépassées. En l'absence de preuve à ce sujet, je considère qu'i n'y a pas lieu pour notre Cour d'intervenir à cet égard. It means that the defendant would be under contempt of the court if he refused to answer questions or let them get what they wanted under the warrant. But, if he refused, and that the plaintiff "uses force" to fulfill the warrant then the limits of the Anton Piller would be overstepped and it would be voided. From what I understand, under Quebec civil law the maximum sentence for contempt of court is up to 5000$ and up to a year.
jaclaz 9y ago
Well, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada an Anton Piller Order has a whole lot of "guarantees" for the "defendant". In this specific case it seems like the behaviour of the "Independent Supervising Solicitor" was far different from the one the Law assigns him/her. See also: http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-guidance-for-anton-piller-orders http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-g... It seems to me like any and all forms of "interrogation" of the defendant, let alone not allowing him to counsel are totally arbitrary and out of scope/boundaries of such order.
mindslight 9y ago
This corruption is directly supported by patronizing the content cartels, including their facelifts such as Netflix. These thugs can't be out of business soon enough. Be a friend, pirate.
Raphmedia 9y ago
Some information about what is TVAddons: "TV ADDONS is an unofficial Kodi add-on development site, it does not host nor link to any type of protected content. It was contended that out of the 1500+ add-ons indexed on TV ADDONS, less than 1% were what the plaintiffs considered to be allegedly “infringing.” Kodi add-ons scrape content sources that are readily available online, sort of like specialized search engines. Add-on developers do not control the content the add-ons are scraping, they are simply a conduit for accessing content through streaming web sites, the same way your web browser would. The Canadian telecom cartel never sent us a takedown notice, something that is required by law." [https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-addons-in-the-fight-against-censorship https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-...]
math0ne 9y ago
I think the fact that his social media accounts were "seized" is even more fucked up.
settsu 9y ago
Let's hope this was an anomaly, if a disturbing one. Unfortunately, given the palpable desperation of the corporations actions, I fear it may not be.
mtl_usr 9y ago
At least I'm pretty sure they (the cable companies) won't be able to use anything they got there in court. But let's be real for a moment, that man, if he sues, will get absolutely nothing in return. Still, it's about time Canada starts getting real laws. This and the people held hostage without AC or water in a plane for 5 hours+ is a proof at how backward this country really is.
- giarc 9y ago
  That's quite a bit of hyperbole to say those two cases represent a "backward country". I think the issue will be if other telco's use the same process (this time staying within the bounds of their instructions) on other cases.
  - mtl_usr 9y ago
    It represent a backward country as these cases should never have happened in the first place. Also, the operation was lead by pretty much all of Canada's telcos. It's not an especially competitive market.
    - giarc 9y ago
      Two cases do not make a country.
      - mtl_usr 9y ago
        You are right. Maybe I'm biased and a tad emotional. I was expecting more from Canada.
wyck 9y ago
Quebec having draconian ass backwards laws...no way.
- mathieutd 9y ago
  It has nothing to do with Quebec. These warrants can be issued anywhere in Canada and in many countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada).
  - wyck 9y ago
    Actually it does, in Quebec it's a civil law, in the rest of Canada its a common law, big difference.
andybak 9y ago
Canada has a reputation as a "softer, gentler" version of the US. I'm aware this is probably a gross distortion but the one topic about Canada where I hear more disturbing stories than any other is in relation to the amount of regulatory (or judicial/legislative) capture around copyright issues. Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Or compromising photos of friends in very high places? More seriously - what gives? How comes it appears that the Canadian system seems so one-sided on anything IP related? Or is it just an artefact of getting my Canada news from HN?
- pbourke 9y ago
  > Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Yes, to the degree that a certain percentage of Radio and TV content must be of Canadian origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content
  - am1988 9y ago
    That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.
    - noarchy 9y ago
      >That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time. This is why the Internet is such a wonderful thing, when it works properly (without worrying about georestrictions, for instance): it allows us to route around things like Cancon, and listen to the streaming audio of our choice.
  - schwap 9y ago
    While this can be annoying, I don't see what it has to do with copyright. Can you elaborate?
solotronics 9y ago
this is exactly why its an Amendment in the US Constitution to bear arms. People should have a last resort of meeting the force of the state with their own.
- dharma1 9y ago
  that would have ended well
  - reactor4 9y ago
    of course not but if the plaintiff have to rely on force to fulfill the warrant then the warrant is voided because it oversteps the limits. (https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2... (paragraph 109))
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  No, the reason we have the second Amendment is to protect the States from either action against them or inaction in their support by the federal government, which is kind of clear from the (unique: only the second amendment has this) prefatory language in the amendment itself about it's purpose.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmitrygr 9y ago
Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. Now that is some * * * * ed up stuff right there...
Asooka 9y ago
He broke the law. Not just that, he broke the law and spit in the face of powerful people holding lots of money. Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS. What happened to him is terrifying and way disproportionate of his crime, which amounted to a few dollars of lost profits by companies that continue to post record profits even in the face of widespread piracy. However, the lesson you should take from this is that if you should 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law, and 2) if you do, try to make yourself hard to find. People commit much worse crimes like rape and murder, and get away with it without being found, you should be able to figure out how to give people an app anonymously. Of course, that is unless you want to make a political statement via civil disobediance, but I have the feeling that person wasn't after that.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > He broke the law. Which law? > Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS. What was he selling? The site looks like a free listing of other people's plugins for Kodi, hosted on other sites (github and the official Kodi add-ons repo, for the 5 add-ons that I looked at). It looks like he's got ads up, and links to zips containing XMLs written by 3rd parties, that presumably provide the metadata to eventually reach some streamed audio/video/whatever. Calling it "selling his illegal products" is more than a stretch. > 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law Might as well drop "while breaking the law". Things won't end well if you piss of people with a lot of money legally either.
  - Asooka 9y ago
    He's profiting from piracy. Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal. I assume that Canada has similar laws. So not only was he engaged in illegal activity - providing information on how to access pirate content, he was actively profiting from it. What happened to him is absolutely the expected outcome of his activity.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
scj 9y ago
“It is important to note that the Defendant was not permitted to refuse to answer questions under fear of contempt proceedings, and his counsel was not permitted to clarify the answers to questions. I conclude unhesitatingly that the Defendant was subjected to an examination for discovery without any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances,” the Judge said. There's more on this case at: https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian-telcos-kodi-addons-170801/ https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian-...
rkenneth 9y ago
In Canada, these corporations just don't deliver television content, they create it and own all the mediums of delivery. Many of those methods of delivery were once created by a Crown Corporation which was paid for originally through taxes and then privatized in times of need. So basically, you control the media and you control the nation. There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally. They own the Cellular Networks, Radio Stations, Television Broadcasting, Internet Service Providers and Newspapers. The Sports Teams, The stadiums, Movie Production, Television Production, Home Security Monitoring and more! They don't have much sympathy from the public; generally there's a hatred towards them but when you have no options you choose your preferred lesser evil. There's some choice out there but it's few and far between because they're as much a victim of attacks from the monopoly as the citizens. (See Barry Logan v. TekSavvy - https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltage-CrossExam-Logan-TRANSCRIPT.pdf https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltag... )
- jtl999 9y ago
  > There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally I wish we had a real free market in Canada for telecom services.
beached_whale 9y ago
I was under the impression that section 7 of the charter means that one cannot be compelled to speak. So how was the order lawful?
pitaa 9y ago
I was wondering why he didn't just clam up and let them arrest him, and then I read this: > He was given a break for dinner and to speak to his lawyer, who was present. I have to wonder if, after seeing how far off the reservation these guys were, his lawyer just told him to go with it in hopes that the whole thing would backfire. Which it looks like it has, at least to a point, if the judge ruled the search unlawful.
rapind 9y ago
It baffles me that he let them in. Unless you have a badge, if you come to my door and tell me you need to search my home because of yada yada yada, you'll be escorted off of my property pretty damn quick. I'm Canadian and I'll take my chances in court on this one. Complete nonsense. I can only imagine how badly this could go if it happened in a rural area.

317 points by na85 9y ago

brndnmtthws 9y ago

People should try to film/record these interactions whenever possible.

FrancoisBosun 9y ago
His phone was seized... he couldn't have filmed even if he had wanted to. Besides, 16 hours, nothing I own would film for that long without changing something.
- JabavuAdams 9y ago
  He didn't have to give up his phone. The searching parties need the resident's permission. They can threaten contempt of court, but they can't otherwise just barge in and take stuff.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dlb_ 9y ago
Interrogations/Depositions of civil lawsuits are always recorded by a stenographer and become public record as far as I know.

na85 9y ago

That agents of private corporations can be granted the authority to conduct searches and interrogations is chilling. Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the state grants law enforcement powers to corporations in order to defend outdated business models and protect profit.

slaymaker1907 9y ago
I don't know why this was down voted, I was honestly thinking the same exact thing.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  It's downvoted because its precisely wrong - the court ruled the search was outside the bounds of the law, and threw out the case. People fuck up all the time, but here, the system worked exactly the way GP wants it to. Certainly the ISPs are at fault here, but the Canadian court system seems to be working just fine. The existence of the Anton Piller concept is troubling, still.
  - bragh 9y ago
    A correct system disallows abuse to happen in the first place. I would draw a parallel to buggy software, that loses the trust of its users. I feel that the same thing can happen to a legal system: and then what will happen?
  - na85 9y ago
    It still happened, even if "corrected" post-hoc. The fact that the cable companies asking for the power to detain and search a private citizen weren't laughed out of the building by law enforcement is what's troubling to me.
jitix 9y ago
Exactly! this is terrifying. The law should be exercised by neutral parties, not the plaintiff. This is the equivalent of you being able to imprison a person in your house because they stole something from you.

fwsgonzo 9y ago

I am baffled. That is some seriously dangerous lawmaking. Essentially a corporation was given the go ahead to gather evidence, in a private citizens house, for its own case. I don't see how this event can be twisted into any other story.

komali2 9y ago

Holy shit, terrifying. The article mentions that the developer was threatened with contempt of court if he didn't answer questions, didn't give up his passwords, etc. I subscribe to the "you can be the rap but not the heat" mentality - if he had kept his mouth shut, even if the bailiff hauled him off to jail that day, a week later he'd have been let out, email and social media intact and whatever other information he revealed in a 16 hour interrogation safe.

snuxoll 9y ago
Does he have a day job? This always seems like an easy decision from 10 miles away, if the police/bailiff/whatever are threatening to take you to jail wrongly you hold your ground and get let out anyway, right? That works great when missing a day or more of work isn't going to end up with you getting fired, even if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
- kakarot 9y ago
  If you get fired for not handing over your personal information to the government after being wrongfully detained then, depending on your country, you have a potential lawsuit on your hands
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    When it comes to employment, the law only matters if you can afford to forgo income from that particular employer, and if you can afford the lawyers. For many people, if they don't have another stream of income or support from family or friends, it's effectively useless to them.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      My integrity in the face of tyranny and the future of my country is worth more than my livelihood. Each and every time someone bends to the will of the police state like this, it makes them a little bit stronger.

megous 9y ago

Lot of power being used for copyright enforcement lately. Yesterday it was NSA, now this. How much time until we see military getting involved?

maxxxxx 9y ago
In the end, property laws are the only really important laws for capitalist so be ready for them to lobby for more laws and enforcement in that direction.
- pitaj 9y ago
  Intellectual property isn't real property, though. Which makes it even scarier, like "thought police" scary.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Intellectual property isn't real property, though Do you mean intellectually property isn't really property, or do you mean intellectually property doesn't consist of estates in land (“real property”.) The latter is obviously true, but hard to see it's relevance; the former is false. IP is no less property than any other form of intangible personal property.
    - devrandomguy 9y ago
      Sure it is, it is a completely different thing. The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. But it does not, it just tries it's best to model an idealized version of reality. This really starts to become apparent where legal English diverges from dictionary or common English.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. IP isn't thoughts and concepts, it's expressions and concrete applications, and “property” is a legal relationship; human laws don't define reality, but they do define legal relationships.

samfriedman 9y ago

The article states that the court order used in this case is something called an Anton Piller order [0]. Its intended use seems to be for cases where the defendant is known to possess incriminating material they are in imminent danger of destroying, and have caused serious damage to the plaintiff. It also seems that an independent lawyer is required in these cases to explain the order to the defendant and handle the collected material. The judge apparently ruled the use of the order unlawful after the fact, so I'd hope that the poor guy is entitled to some sort of compensation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada

jostmey 9y ago
If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already have all the proof you need. The law is an oxymoron and dangerous.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already have all the proof you need. Knowing that someone has evidence isn't the same thing as having that evidence.
- am1988 9y ago
  He took confidential documents is a hard claim to verify if they end up destroyed before the trial. by your logic would a search order ever be required?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> On June 9, the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant's home, without notice, to search for and seize relevant evidence before it can be destroyed. A Federal Court judge would later declare the Anton Piller order in this case "unlawful," but that was weeks after a group of men arrived at Lackman's door... Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence [1]. Curious if such a law would pass Constitutional muster in the United States. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

DarkKomunalec 9y ago
One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence, so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Or maybe not. Maybe those responsible will be held accountable, and face jail-time for effectively holding someone prisoner, breaking into their home, and stealing their belongings, albeit with the dubious stamp of approval of a judge. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  > so violent retribution is fully legitimate. Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer. If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago

DarkKomunalec 9y ago

"Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. "Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman." I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you really be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?

Canada 9y ago
The article is terrible. Who exactly coerced Lackman to answer arbitrary questions? Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Who threatened Lackman with contempt or court? I've known the parties to a couple of Anton Piller orders and I don't believe there was any questioning. Anton Piller orders are essentially a civil search warrant to seize evidence. Go in, take the items sought by force if necessary and hand them to an independent lawyer who will keep them. The defendant or someone representing it if it's a corporation has to be there to witness it and be given an inventory of what's taken. There's no scope for questioning anyone.
- scrabble 9y ago
  The article said that a judge ruled the search unlawful after the fact, and one of the reasons for that was because of the questioning -- so I'm not surprised there was no questioning in the cases you are familiar with since they may have been carried out correctly.
  - giarc 9y ago
    My interpretation was that the questioning was unlawful since they asked about other companies that might be selling these android boxes. They were supposed to limit questions to his particular case.
- developer2 9y ago
  >> Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Personally, this is the part that really scares me. The majority of us Canadians do not have personal lawyers. If this happened to me, I'd be stuck trying to find a lawyer for the first time. I'm sure the thugs entering my home would seize my computers and phone immediately, and refuse to allow me to use them to look up and contact a lawyer. Due to the seizure, I'd be unable to find representation. What do you do at that point?

joshuaheard 9y ago

A "civil search warrant"? Fortunately, we have no such thing in the U.S. And since it appears he wasn't allowed to leave, it was effectively a "civil arrest warrant" as well.

stan_rogers 9y ago
You only think you don't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#Raids_and_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#R...
- ameister14 9y ago
  "Accompanied by Scientology lawyers, federal marshals made several raids on the homes of individuals who were accused of posting Scientology's copyrighted materials to the newsgroup." That's different than the scientology lawyers going alone.
  - endorphone 9y ago
    There was a bailiff and independent counsel there as representatives of the court, so they weren't alone in this case. This action is so rare that they obviously had no clue what the limits were, though.
    - reactor4 9y ago
      The limits and the penalties for overstepping are getting clearer: http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-documents-celanese-v-murray-demolition/ http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-do...
halostatue 9y ago
The U.S. has “impoundment orders”, which are fundamentally the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment_orders_in_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment...

bww 9y ago

This is how the civil courts system works in Canada? Agents of a corporation are permitted by law to search a private citizen's home, seize property, detain him against his will, and deny him access to his lawyer for 16 hours? Even if they overstepped their authority in this particular case, that there is any case where some version of this is legal is absolutely unconscionable.

giarc 9y ago
From what I read the problem with this specific case was they over stayed their welcome (they were given 12 hours and took 18) and that they tried to gather info on other cases (were supposed to stay within the case at hand). So everything else seems ok... which blows my mind.
Raphmedia 9y ago
The Anton Piller order does not gives the right to the agents of the corporation to enter the citizen's home. The citizen can still refuse. The order is ordering the civilian to allow the agents to enter his home. You can refuse. However, by refusing you very likely become guilty of contempt of Court. As for the "deny access to his lawyer" the law says : "The defendants have a right to contact their lawyer within a reasonable amount of time". There is however a supervising lawyer present during the search. This lawyer is neutral to the case and is there to take note of what has been seized or searched. (Not a lawyer.)
am1988 9y ago
No. What they did was beyond the bounds of this type of order. Americans should get off your "FREEDOM" high horse until you reduce your prison population to something sane.
- plandis 9y ago
  You know it's possible, as an individual, to be critical of this and, for example, prison population.
  - 9y ago

jostmey 9y ago

"...civil search warrant..." That phrase sends chills up my spine. Does it mean a civilian organization can obtain a search warrant in Canada?

aroberge 9y ago
Perhaps it is based on the fact that Quebec law is known in French as the "Code civil" as opposed to the English-based "Common law" and so, would have little to do with what the English speaking world know as "civil cases".
- jaclaz 9y ago
  No, this Anton Piller thingy has originated in Common Law BUT the Quebec Court of Appeal has "accepted" it in Civil Law, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...
  - reactor4 9y ago
    I found something interesting at paragraph 109 of citation #21 (https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...) Je crois bon de préciser ici que les personnes à qui l'ordonnance a été signifiée auraient pu refuser de fournir les informations demandées. Devant un tel refus, Groupe AST (1993) inc. n'aurait pu insister davantage, mais aurait dû plutôt utiliser la procédure d'outrage au tribunal pour faire valoir ses droits. Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier indiquant que Groupe AST (1993) inc. aurait obtenu les informations par la force, après un premier refus. Si tel avait été le cas, il y aurait eu lieu d'annuler l'existence de l'ordonnance Anton Piller, vu que ses limites auraient été dépassées. En l'absence de preuve à ce sujet, je considère qu'i n'y a pas lieu pour notre Cour d'intervenir à cet égard. It means that the defendant would be under contempt of the court if he refused to answer questions or let them get what they wanted under the warrant. But, if he refused, and that the plaintiff "uses force" to fulfill the warrant then the limits of the Anton Piller would be overstepped and it would be voided. From what I understand, under Quebec civil law the maximum sentence for contempt of court is up to 5000$ and up to a year.

jaclaz 9y ago

Well, according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada an Anton Piller Order has a whole lot of "guarantees" for the "defendant". In this specific case it seems like the behaviour of the "Independent Supervising Solicitor" was far different from the one the Law assigns him/her. See also: http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-guidance-for-anton-piller-orders http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-g... It seems to me like any and all forms of "interrogation" of the defendant, let alone not allowing him to counsel are totally arbitrary and out of scope/boundaries of such order.

mindslight 9y ago

This corruption is directly supported by patronizing the content cartels, including their facelifts such as Netflix. These thugs can't be out of business soon enough. Be a friend, pirate.

Raphmedia 9y ago

Some information about what is TVAddons: "TV ADDONS is an unofficial Kodi add-on development site, it does not host nor link to any type of protected content. It was contended that out of the 1500+ add-ons indexed on TV ADDONS, less than 1% were what the plaintiffs considered to be allegedly “infringing.” Kodi add-ons scrape content sources that are readily available online, sort of like specialized search engines. Add-on developers do not control the content the add-ons are scraping, they are simply a conduit for accessing content through streaming web sites, the same way your web browser would. The Canadian telecom cartel never sent us a takedown notice, something that is required by law." [https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-addons-in-the-fight-against-censorship https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-...]

math0ne 9y ago

I think the fact that his social media accounts were "seized" is even more fucked up.

settsu 9y ago

Let's hope this was an anomaly, if a disturbing one. Unfortunately, given the palpable desperation of the corporations actions, I fear it may not be.

mtl_usr 9y ago

At least I'm pretty sure they (the cable companies) won't be able to use anything they got there in court. But let's be real for a moment, that man, if he sues, will get absolutely nothing in return. Still, it's about time Canada starts getting real laws. This and the people held hostage without AC or water in a plane for 5 hours+ is a proof at how backward this country really is.

giarc 9y ago
That's quite a bit of hyperbole to say those two cases represent a "backward country". I think the issue will be if other telco's use the same process (this time staying within the bounds of their instructions) on other cases.
- mtl_usr 9y ago
  It represent a backward country as these cases should never have happened in the first place. Also, the operation was lead by pretty much all of Canada's telcos. It's not an especially competitive market.
  - giarc 9y ago
    Two cases do not make a country.
    - mtl_usr 9y ago
      You are right. Maybe I'm biased and a tad emotional. I was expecting more from Canada.

wyck 9y ago

Quebec having draconian ass backwards laws...no way.

mathieutd 9y ago
It has nothing to do with Quebec. These warrants can be issued anywhere in Canada and in many countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada).
- wyck 9y ago
  Actually it does, in Quebec it's a civil law, in the rest of Canada its a common law, big difference.

andybak 9y ago

Canada has a reputation as a "softer, gentler" version of the US. I'm aware this is probably a gross distortion but the one topic about Canada where I hear more disturbing stories than any other is in relation to the amount of regulatory (or judicial/legislative) capture around copyright issues. Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Or compromising photos of friends in very high places? More seriously - what gives? How comes it appears that the Canadian system seems so one-sided on anything IP related? Or is it just an artefact of getting my Canada news from HN?

pbourke 9y ago
> Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Yes, to the degree that a certain percentage of Radio and TV content must be of Canadian origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content
- am1988 9y ago
  That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.
  - noarchy 9y ago
    >That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time. This is why the Internet is such a wonderful thing, when it works properly (without worrying about georestrictions, for instance): it allows us to route around things like Cancon, and listen to the streaming audio of our choice.
- schwap 9y ago
  While this can be annoying, I don't see what it has to do with copyright. Can you elaborate?

solotronics 9y ago

this is exactly why its an Amendment in the US Constitution to bear arms. People should have a last resort of meeting the force of the state with their own.

dharma1 9y ago
that would have ended well
- reactor4 9y ago
  of course not but if the plaintiff have to rely on force to fulfill the warrant then the warrant is voided because it oversteps the limits. (https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2... (paragraph 109))
dragonwriter 9y ago
No, the reason we have the second Amendment is to protect the States from either action against them or inaction in their support by the federal government, which is kind of clear from the (unique: only the second amendment has this) prefatory language in the amendment itself about it's purpose.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dmitrygr 9y ago

Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers. Now that is some * * * * ed up stuff right there...

Asooka 9y ago

He broke the law. Not just that, he broke the law and spit in the face of powerful people holding lots of money. Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS. What happened to him is terrifying and way disproportionate of his crime, which amounted to a few dollars of lost profits by companies that continue to post record profits even in the face of widespread piracy. However, the lesson you should take from this is that if you should 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law, and 2) if you do, try to make yourself hard to find. People commit much worse crimes like rape and murder, and get away with it without being found, you should be able to figure out how to give people an app anonymously. Of course, that is unless you want to make a political statement via civil disobediance, but I have the feeling that person wasn't after that.

khedoros1 9y ago
> He broke the law. Which law? > Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS. What was he selling? The site looks like a free listing of other people's plugins for Kodi, hosted on other sites (github and the official Kodi add-ons repo, for the 5 add-ons that I looked at). It looks like he's got ads up, and links to zips containing XMLs written by 3rd parties, that presumably provide the metadata to eventually reach some streamed audio/video/whatever. Calling it "selling his illegal products" is more than a stretch. > 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law Might as well drop "while breaking the law". Things won't end well if you piss of people with a lot of money legally either.
- Asooka 9y ago
  He's profiting from piracy. Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal. I assume that Canada has similar laws. So not only was he engaged in illegal activity - providing information on how to access pirate content, he was actively profiting from it. What happened to him is absolutely the expected outcome of his activity.
  - khedoros1 9y ago

scj 9y ago

“It is important to note that the Defendant was not permitted to refuse to answer questions under fear of contempt proceedings, and his counsel was not permitted to clarify the answers to questions. I conclude unhesitatingly that the Defendant was subjected to an examination for discovery without any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances,” the Judge said. There's more on this case at: https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian-telcos-kodi-addons-170801/ https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian-...

rkenneth 9y ago

In Canada, these corporations just don't deliver television content, they create it and own all the mediums of delivery. Many of those methods of delivery were once created by a Crown Corporation which was paid for originally through taxes and then privatized in times of need. So basically, you control the media and you control the nation. There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally. They own the Cellular Networks, Radio Stations, Television Broadcasting, Internet Service Providers and Newspapers. The Sports Teams, The stadiums, Movie Production, Television Production, Home Security Monitoring and more! They don't have much sympathy from the public; generally there's a hatred towards them but when you have no options you choose your preferred lesser evil. There's some choice out there but it's few and far between because they're as much a victim of attacks from the monopoly as the citizens. (See Barry Logan v. TekSavvy - https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltage-CrossExam-Logan-TRANSCRIPT.pdf https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltag... )

jtl999 9y ago
> There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally I wish we had a real free market in Canada for telecom services.

beached_whale 9y ago

I was under the impression that section 7 of the charter means that one cannot be compelled to speak. So how was the order lawful?

pitaa 9y ago

I was wondering why he didn't just clam up and let them arrest him, and then I read this: > He was given a break for dinner and to speak to his lawyer, who was present. I have to wonder if, after seeing how far off the reservation these guys were, his lawyer just told him to go with it in hopes that the whole thing would backfire. Which it looks like it has, at least to a point, if the judge ruled the search unlawful.

rapind 9y ago

It baffles me that he let them in. Unless you have a badge, if you come to my door and tell me you need to search my home because of yada yada yada, you'll be escorted off of my property pretty damn quick. I'm Canadian and I'll take my chances in court on this one. Complete nonsense. I can only imagine how badly this could go if it happened in a rural area.