Home > CIPPIC, Copyright, CRTC, P2P, Teksavvy, Voltage > Synopsis of CIPPIC Cross Examination of Canipre’s Barry Logan

Synopsis of CIPPIC Cross Examination of Canipre’s Barry Logan

The CIPPIC has filed it’s cross-examination of Canipe’s evidence with the court.  The court case will resume tomorrow.  I will do a follow up blog when I have sometime this week.  I’ve got a super busy week ahead.  Here are a few interesting and amusing points from the cross examination of Barry Logan the CEO of Canipre by the CIPPIC’s counsel David Fewer in the Teksavvy vs Voltage file sharing case.

1) Pages 32 – 39 deal with what an IP address is.  The CIPPIC as expected are arguing that and Internet subscriber and Internet user are 2 very different things. Very interesting exchange between Logan, Fewer (asking the questions), Voltages counsel Zibarras, and Teksavvy’s legal reps as well.  All except Teksavvy’s reps who remained silent on the issue, admit that there’s no way of identifying the actual infringer.

2) Pages 42 – 46 deal with defining bittorrent clients, and how bittorrent works, and a bizarre statement from Logan suggesting that users know how bittorrent works because it’s described in the “help files”.  The avg user doesn’t know what an IP address is let alone deciphering highly technical help files that require an intermediate level of networking knowledge to understand, or even know where the help files are located in most software from my own professional experience in software development.

3) Pages 46 – 58 deal with how Canipre specifically obtained it’s evidence and how that was collected.  Canipre is using software offsite and admined by an outside company.  Maybe important.  Voltages council also implied that they wouldn’t release the software developer’s name in fear that the CIPPIC’s clients (the public interest) would hack it.   Logan goes into an explanation that the software Canipre uses does not share the entire file on the internet.  Basically the software extracts data packets, and inspects data packets.  Those packets are matched up to a downloaded version of the file.

4) Pages 79 – 86 deals with Logan’s comments in the media around “speculative invoicing” or copyright trolling.  It seemed that Logan didn’t know exactly what to say on that, but Voltages lawyers were quite blunt in stating that’s exactly what they are doing.

My thoughts:  A lot of what I’ve read in this cross examination leads me to believe that Barry Logan doesn’t seem to be qualified for the position he’s taken.  Data forensics is often a field of work that requires extensive University level study and field work.  I have a family member with a Yale degree in data forensics.  The testimony Logan provided here raises more questions I think as to why the CIPPIC is doing this cross-examination rather than qualified techs from Teksavvy, who for all purposes could put this guy in the closet.  Teksavvy techs are more than qualified as working on the beginnings of the networks to put way more questions on Logan surrounding the technical aspects of data collection by Canipre.

I also think a closer inspection of the collection software Canipre is using is a must.  I think those following me know just how buggy data packet inspection software can be through ISP’s use of throttling.  Knowing people who work in the data forensics field I’m not satisfied with Logan’s response regarding what’s being collected on Canadians by Canipre. Most data forensics involves following your tracks online, and this information may be able to be used for targeting letters to users that push the right buttons to get users to pay up.

On the privacy side, I think we’ve seen over the past few weeks what a fire warrentless data collection has lit over Edward Snowden.  Warrentless data collection over telecommunications should be something the CRTC and the Privacy Commissioner may want to set guidelines for since our Conservative government doesn’t seem to be moving at all on their digital files.

Question still remains.  Will Teksavvy fulfill it’s legal obligations directly in court tomorrow?  From this cross examination on technical details (although I’m not a lawyer), I have very strong concerns as to why we are seeing the CIPPIC doing this considering the level of technical expertise of Canipre’s senior staff, obvious holes in Logan’s testimony, and Voltage reps on the record as being extremely uncooperative, and secretive at a time when the public is demanding answers by their own Government on data collection, let alone some half nut with a fake tech diploma saber rattling Canadians.  Hopefully tomorrow we’ll get answers.

*Just to add one more note, when you think of the data forensics field in which Barry Logan is suggesting Canipre is a part of, think more along the lines of a criminal forensics lab. This field of work is to gather digital evidence without prejudice, judgement or tampering following strict protocols.  Several times in this cross-examination the CIPPIC brought up prejudice against file sharers and media comments about locking them up by Logan.  You would never see that from a criminal forensics lab. Closer examination of the data capture software in which Voltages lawyers refused should be ordered by the court.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: