Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Piracy The Internet Canada

New Canadian Copyright Laws Require ISPs To Retain, Share Illegal Download Info 161

BarbaraHudson writes: New Year's Day brought into force new Canadian copyright laws that go after people who download copyrighted materials online. From the article: "As of January 1st Internet service providers (ISPs) are required to pass along notices of alleged copyright infringement., something which used to be voluntary. ISPs must also retain records of the notices they receive and forward to users for at least six months in case a copyright owner decides to pursue legal action. Lawsuits could seek up to $5,000 for downloading copyrighted material for personal use, and up to $20,000 for a download that led to commercial gain.

ISPs are also now be required to provide your personal info, but only if the copyright owner sues. Search engines also have to remove cached versions of allegedly infringing material that have been removed from a website. Non-compliance allows copyright owners to pursue legal action and claim damages against them as well. Finally, a review of the Copyright Act every five years is now required."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Canadian Copyright Laws Require ISPs To Retain, Share Illegal Download Info

Comments Filter:
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:14PM (#48721681) Homepage

    Let me guess, a right wing government, always the best than money can buy.

    • I don'the know if left or right-wing ideology has anything to do with such matters. In the U.S. it is generally the left-wing Democrat party that pushes the agenda of the Hollywood media giants with regards to copyright law and the government aiding corporations to step all over individual rights to pursue copyright violations.

      • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:30PM (#48721775)

        The Democrat party isn't left-wing, it's right-wing. It's just a different flavor of right-wing than the Republican party. The Republicans' good buddies are the oil and gas industries, the military contracting industries, and the gun industry. The Democrats' good buddies are the media companies/copyright industry and the big banks.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Interesting claim you make there. However, just because you partner with business it doesn't mean you are right-wing. No, it's the ideology. To be honest though, I can't tell whether this is a right-wing or left-wing action because copyright can be argued to either be anti free market (left-wing) or pro free market (right-wing). When it comes to the actual people who did it, money surely was a factor.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Interesting claim you make there. However, just because you partner with business it doesn't mean you are right-wing. No, it's the ideology. To be honest though, I can't tell whether this is a right-wing or left-wing action because copyright can be argued to either be anti free market (left-wing) or pro free market (right-wing). When it comes to the actual people who did it, money surely was a factor.

            it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.
            Actions are the important thing, not words.

            • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @09:19PM (#48722295)

              it's simple, left wing is for the people, right wing is for the aristocracy, which now a days is the rich and big business. The Democrats are to the left of the Republicans but are still very pro-business. You just have to look at their health reform which is pro-insurance companies or the 2008 financial crisis where they helped the bankers rather then the people.

              In the U.S., basically Left means Democrat and Right means Republican. Which means all 4 of them have lost much meaning.

              Ostensibly today, Left and Democrat mean "big government" or "government economic control" along with "social liberalism", while Right or Republican means "small government" but also "social control".

              Note the word "ostensibly". It's all BS, and both sides want to control everything in your life, from who you can or cannot hire or do business with to who you sleep with, plus how you spend your money, and how much of it, before Government confiscates the rest.

              The single Left-Right dichotomy has always been bullshit, but at least Back In The Day it had some real meaning.

              It all boils down to this: Government, and those who run it, are generally hungry for both power and money. No matter whose "side" they claim to be on.

              All other political ills stem from those two things. There are a few good people in Government but at least today they are overwhelmed by the greedy powermongers.

              • by dryeo ( 100693 )

                Yes, the Americans seem to have changed a few meanings and as you say, most of it is bullshit anyways as both parties are mostly on the authoritarian side. Unluckily authoritarian types seem to do better in democracies, if only due to being able to be more immoral.

                • Everyone seems to be skirting around 2 truths:
                  1. Marketing. They'll say anything to get elected.
                  2. Money. That's the only vote.

                  Our power? Ignore the marketing and vote with your dollar.

                  • by dryeo ( 100693 )

                    It's hard to ignore the marketing, even when you're aware of it. Certain messages repeated in the background have an affect even if it is not on a conscious level. These politicians spend a lot of money on psychology to find the most effective message..

                  • I don't think I "forgot" those things. They are implicit in what I wrote.
                • Yes, the Americans seem to have changed a few meanings

                  Sadly, they changed it for the rest of the world, too.

              • Republican means a small government in order to preserve the liberties of individuals. Except for where drugs are involved, of course. And pornography. And abortion. And immigration. And the feds still need to butt in and overrule the state authority to ban gay marriage and preemptively block non-discrimination laws. Oh, and it's important the government still be able to erect giant crucifix monuments and put up displays of the ten commandments just to make sure everyone knows that non-Christians aren't tru

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Brought to mind a funny image, if US politics were a bird, say an American Eagle it would be flying permanently sideways with it wings perpendicular to the ground (ie both wings on the same side), of course doing that, it could never stay up and will inevitably spiral into ever tightening circles and crash into to the ground. The American Eagle has become an endangered democracy.

        • Perhaps from the outside the Democrat party appears right-wing, but in the U.S. they generally self identify as being left-wing.

          BTW, I believe it would be best to abolish using terms derived from 18th century revolutionary France to describe modern political parties. Both of the parties seem to have fascist tendencies when it comes to favoring eilitist and corporate interests over a citizen's individual rights.

          • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @09:12PM (#48722261)

            I completely disagree. We need to retain the terms, but we need to use them correctly, which means we need to call both the Democrats and the Republicans "right wing". Otherwise, we're going to continue to falsely believe that somehow they're different, rather than the truth which is (as you say) they both have fascist tendencies and favor elitist and corporatist interests over citizens' individual rights.

            If we start calling the Democrats "left wing", then we'll just continue to be fooled, and we'll never get to a state where the well-being of the People is given any weight in politics.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              " We need to retain the terms, but we need to use them correctly, "

              I challenge you to correctly define the words 'left wing' and 'right wing'.

              Why not call democrats democrats and take them for what they are?

          • It's relative. The republicans are on the right of US politics, the democrats are on the left of US politics - but US politics as a whole only spans from 'right' to 'extreme far right' by European standards.

            What Europe calls left would be regarded as traiterously communist in the US, and what the US calls right would be reduced to the man standing on a European street corner screaming that the end of the world is upon us.

            • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              the democrats are on the left of US politic

              Not when elected Democrats are to the right of Republican voters on most issues. Republican voters don't want bank bailouts, their Medicare or SS cut, nor did they want the NDAA or telecom immunity. Hell, they "evolved" on ending DADT before [gallup.com] Obama did.

              • Sometimes I really wonder what would happen if the Democrat Party, as a whole, suddenly changed their platform on two issues: gun control and immigration, to mostly match the Republicans on those issues. (i.e., no new Federal gun laws, and no more push for "comprehensive immigration reform".) I believe the Republican party would quickly cease to exist with a majority of it voters switching to the Democrats, and a new party left of the Dems would quickly rise up to fill that void.

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      ooth, the dmca was signed under Clinton...
      • Harper is conservative. It doesn't matter no political party isn't trying to wedge this stuff in.
      • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        ooth, the dmca was signed under Clinton...

        Because he was a right-wing president. Same reason he muscled through the free trade, deregulation, and gutting of welfare that Reagan-Bush never could.

  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:14PM (#48721685)

    Just a question to ponder:

    What would happen if one of the judges responsible for this law or politician, were to have his/her system hacked, leading to prosecution for alleged copyright infringement?

    • Or their kids or spouses get ensured after downloadinga few songs from a torrent (assuming we know judges would never participate in such activities themselves).

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Just a question to ponder:

      What would happen if one of the judges responsible for this law or politician, were to have his/her system hacked, leading to prosecution for alleged copyright infringement?

      The copyright industry wouldn't go after a judge or politician.

      What good are bought laws if they can backfire?

    • It will happen. Or something like it. This is a Corporate Money Grubbing Law and I don't see it lasting for very long.

      It sounds almost as bad as SOPA.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:18PM (#48721699)

    link [michaelgeist.ca]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:28PM (#48721757)

    For fuck sakes if we're going to go full on america up here can we get rid of the fucking tariff please

    • The media tariff is your get-out-of-jail-free card here. Just buy one blank CD-R and keep the receipt. When the media companies try to sue you, simply send them a copy of your receipt as proof that you paid for an unencumbered home-use license via the government, and inform them to send the government their demand for payment.
      • Tha'ts now how the tarrif works. It doesn't make copying legal - it's simply a payment in compensation for the many many many acts of illegal copying which the government admits it is powerless to stop.

        • So if I've already paid compensation, at the rate determined by the government, how can it be alleged that I haven't? To be fair, you claim that it is this way, but that's never actually been proven in court (unless I missed some ruling: please cite...)
    • For fuck sakes if we're going to go full on america up here can we get rid of the fucking tariff please

      You're still buying CDRs? Because that's the only media the tariff applies to.

  • Don't be afraid (Score:5, Informative)

    by tom229 ( 1640685 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:29PM (#48721771)
    This summary makes things sound worse than they are. From my interpretation of tfa it sounds like Canadians are just going to start getting a lot more warning letters. Considering that the max penalty is 5 grand, and the copyright holder has to take you to court to get it, I'd imagine these letters are going to relatively benign.
    • Fear solves nothing (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gavron ( 1300111 )

      You can be afraid or not but that has nothing to do with this.

      The "summary" doesn't make things sound worse than they are. READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE!

      ISPs now MUST forward notices. They did not have to before.
      ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant. They did not have to before.

      What kind of a moron would think any of this is a good thing? Of course, purchased politicians and the MAFIAA who bought them.

      E

      • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Saturday January 03, 2015 @12:03AM (#48722937) Homepage
        ISPs now MUST share subscriber name and address and info with the complaintant.

        Actually, no. They need to ask an actual judge for a warrant first.

        https://torrentfreak.com/canad... [torrentfreak.com]

        Granted it's not an SCC ruling, but given the SCC just said even the police need a warrant, I'd say it's pretty solid.

        http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201... [michaelgeist.ca]
    • If 6 different copyright holders all take action at the same time for different infringements, you could be facing multiple fines. $5,000 for your kid grabbing a movie is going to hurt. $30,000 half a dozen movies and songs is more like a bomb going off.
    • $5000 x 10000 MP3s = Bankruptcy to the average person.

      • by Strider- ( 39683 )

        According to Michael Geist, this law limits liability to $5000 for *ALL* infringements. In your example, the copyright owner would have to bring forward separate court proceedings for each of those 10,000 infringements. I doubt any court would accept that.

        • Re:Don't be afraid (Score:5, Informative)

          by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson@@@gmail...com> on Friday January 02, 2015 @09:20PM (#48722299) Journal
          Actually, not. The actual law says that it's $5,000.00 max per proceeding (legal action). Each copyright holder is entitled to initiate their own proceedings. See the part I bolded? "A copyright holder" - singular.

          38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

          (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to

          all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

          (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

          If Sony sues and settles, that doesn't mean that Microsoft can't sue as well, because downloading their software would not be included in Sony's proceedings. Sony can only institute actions in relation to subject matter that THEY are the copyright holders.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        As far as I know, downloading music for personal use is still legal in Canada due to the side affects of the media levy on blank CDs, audio cassettes etc. We pay a levy, we can make copies, which wasn't what the music industry expected the courts to rule.
        The courts have also made rulings that make a pretty liberal definition of downloading as well, basically as long as you pull rather then I push you can copy all my music.

        • As far as I know, downloading music for personal use is still legal in Canada due to the side affects of the media levy on blank CDs...

          That's only for music (not films, tv shows, etc) from artists registered with the Canadian recording industry. Furthermore, it doesn't cover downloads, but copying to the blank media. In other words, the only thing it protects is that Celine Dion mix disk.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Up to $5k. For what? One download? Or for overall downloads?

    Also, suing many people at once doesn't really make sense and any such action would almost automatically be thrown out and require individual cases instead.

    Anyway, this is far cry from the US bullshit

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/... [digitaljournal.com]

    Also, the *up to $5k* means that the $5k is reserved for most extreme cases.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Also, the *up to $5k* means that the $5k is reserved for most extreme cases.

      No, for the most extreme cases you'd be sued for gaining commercially, since you listened to that downloaded song on your way to work one day.

    • Re:Up to $5k... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrbcs ( 737902 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:59PM (#48721915)
      The big thing that people miss is: They can only sue for the value of goods downloaded. AND they must prove that. No fishing.

      This is not Canada bending over for Amerika, It's Harper saying "Screw you" you're not going to threaten Canadians.

      If, for example, I go buy a movie, then download a version for my media centre, I have not committed a crime. I have paid for it. If I download it, and have not bought a copy, and they catch me, they can only sue me for $20 for the copy, not millions like the states.

      There will not be any 6 million lawsuits here.

      If the media companies weren't so stupid, they would price it properly and no-one would pirate. Who needs to pirate any songs anymore? I can just fire up Spotify and listen to whatever I want. If the movie industry ever pulls their heads out of their asses, we'll have the same for movies.

      /rant

      • Re:Up to $5k... (Score:5, Informative)

        by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson@@@gmail...com> on Friday January 02, 2015 @09:23PM (#48722313) Journal
        Wrong. The law also allows that the copyright holder can sue for statutory damages instead of actual damages. [justice.gc.ca]

        38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally,

        (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

        (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Don't forget the rules about breaking DRM that have been introduced by the Conservatives, sure you're free to copy stuff, but if it has any form of encryption I believe it is a criminal offence now. No more copying most all DVD's though they did allow for copying VHS tapes.

        • Here in the UK, actually breaking the encryption isn't illegal - but distributing any tools or software designed to break the encryption is, and so is distributing any content which has had the rights management stripped. As the UK law is just our implimentation of the EUCD, I imagine much the same applies in the rest of Europe.

      • Pricing isn't the only issue, it's availability. The media companies want to control how you watch something, when you watch something, how many times you watch it, what quality it is. The best thing about pirated movies is that they're far far better than what you can buy. No ads, no 'must watch' content on a disc, you can play it on ANY device, and they often come with more subtitles.

      • They can only sue for the value of goods downloaded...If, for example, I go buy a movie, then download a version for my media centre, I have not committed a crime.

        So this is almost sensible.

        What I'd like to see is a double edge approach providing a media licensing system where every ISP has an optional media subscription service at a reasonable price. Then have it that media companies can only request download metadata for content that they license to that ISP, however if a customer subscribes to the ISP m

      • by mirix ( 1649853 )

        This is not Canada bending over for Amerika, It's Harper saying "Screw you" you're not going to threaten Canadians.

        Bullshit. Harper lives to bend over for Americans. He'll do it without them even asking.

    • Depends on if it's private or commercial. Statutory damages are a minimum of $500 per for individuals. Copyright Act [justice.gc.ca].

      (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not more than $20,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for each work or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for commercial purposes; and

      (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 that the court considers just, with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works or other subject-matter, if the infringements are for non-commercial purposes.

      The problem for individuals is that there can be multiple proceedings from different copyright holders, and they are additive. You download a movie and a song, the movie copyright holder can only proceed against you for the movie, and the song copyright holder can only proceed against you for the song, so they would be different cases, with different plaintiffs.

  • All infringements stored for later use if you decide to protest the government or participate in the EFF, etc.

    No statute of limitations.

  • $5000? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:41PM (#48721829)

    I'm confused, why the hell is the limit $5K?

    How about capping it out at ten times the retail price of the item in question? That means for a $40 Bluray, you're on the hook for $400. I think that's more then fair considering most people would only watch it once then delete the file, so at worst the "copyright holders" are out a single sale. Of course, intent to distribute should be different since I really don't understand why anyone has to pirate then rip to disk and sell for personal gain (and I'm OK with that being criminal).

    I don't understand why modern day media is valued so much when they're selling this stuff at Futureshop for so little. All this does is tell me how toxic modern day copyright is, which just makes me want to stop spending money on movies and music all together (except for those few indie bands I can pay directly). Better to be safe and sorry (I was going to say "than", but then I realized as a Canadian I'm sorry all the time) and just avoid it all.

  • Now that they can chase down people who are (allegedly) downloading and distributing, can we get rid of the blank media levy [wikipedia.org] - $0.29/CD, or laughably $0.24/cassette?
    • Why would we want to do that? The media tariff is basically your get-out-of-jail-free card here. Just buy one blank CD-R and keep the receipt. Then download all you want. When the media companies try to sue you, simply send them a copy of your receipt as proof that you paid for an unencumbered and universal home-use license via the government, in the proscribed manner, and direct them to send their demand for payment to the appropriate government office for servicing.
    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      As far as I know, due to the media levy it is still legal to make personal copies of music (it never was legal for video etc) including downloading off the internet. Besides there is no levy on a blank DVD and it is more useful.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:55PM (#48721905)

    Here's a takedown of the new law and it's effects by Canadian law professor Michael Geist: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/12/notice-difference-new-canadian-internet-copyright-rules-isps-set-launch/ [michaelgeist.ca]

    Some notes:
    The notice-and-notice system "has operated informally for over a decade but will kick in as the law in 2015 ...".

    Under this system "copyright owners are entitled to send infringement notices to Internet providers, who are legally required to forward the notifications ..."

    ISP's must "retain information on the subscriber for six months (or 12 months if court proceedings are launched)".

    "[T]he personal information of subscribers is not disclosed to the copyright owner ... If the copyright owner is unhappy with only sending a notification and wants to proceed with further legal action, they must go to court to obtain an order requiring the Internet provider to reveal the identity of the subscriber".

    "Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded".

    • "Moreover, the law now also limits potential liability for Internet users for non-commercial infringement, capping damages at C$5,000 for all infringements. While that is not insignificant, it does mean that threats of tens of thousands of dollars in liability for unauthorized downloading are unfounded".

      That is per rights holder. If you've downloaded 10 works from one rights holder, they can get no more than $5k. However if you've downloaded 10 works from 10 different rights holders, you may end up on the receiving end of ten law suits, with total potential fine of $50k. Both amounts not counting legal costs.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 02, 2015 @07:55PM (#48721907)

    Yep, that cha-ching sound you're hearing is the sound of VPN, Proxy, and seedbox providers in more freer countries taking New customers from Canada - welcome aboard :)

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Yep, that cha-ching sound you're hearing is the sound of VPN, Proxy, and seedbox providers in more freer countries taking New customers from Canada - welcome aboard :)

      I wonder how true that is.

      First off, most VPN and Proxy providers don't provide one IP per subscriber - it's shared among multiple subscribers (through NAT, usually). So if you're using a VPN or proxy server with 10 other people at the same time, an IP address will not pinpoint a guilty party. What's the provider to do - send 10 notices out?

      I

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So, how does this work. It says they target downloaders, but in the article it says companies might sue if they KEEP downloading, or posting it. So it sounds like the law actually is targeting uploaders.

    Is this law targeting seeders then? Or anyone who downloads from a non-sharing place, like Usenet or Mega.

  • After all with out a computer there would be no way for me to download anything so why is an ISP being the target? Why don't they go after the hardware/computer manufactures for building electronics that will aid in piracy? Oh yah most ISP's either own content channels so probably get better deals on licensing (Shaw/Rogers/Bell) or they are small enough to be crushed through litigation costs.

    • by ruir ( 2709173 )
      This is simple, they are barriers of entry to the market and should be illegal. Only the big ones have enough traction, time and people, and know how to be basically working for free for the media cartels. The pa & mon ISPs have no chance at that.
  • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @08:32PM (#48722091) Homepage
    OK, from my understanding the US and other countries have been getting warning letters for a while now, there are even countries where the isp is supposed to kick you off (right?). But I sort of get the impression that people in the US still pirate stuff. How does is work? Am I definitely going to get warning letters now? Will I only get warning letters if I pirate popular modern things, like game of thrones? And then what? Somehow I find it hard to believe that all Canadians will now have to pay for Game of Thrones or stop watching it?
    • You will only get warning letters if you're downloading copyrighted stuff that:

      1. the rights holder is monitoring,
      2. from a service the rights holder is monitoring,
      3. if they can identify you somehow.

      Using encryption and built-in blacklists (of known monitoring sites) will help a lot.

      So the race is on for torrent client developers to make it even harder to track who's downloading what.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's a simple solution, use a VPN.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    cause every attempt at stopping p2p has worked in the past...

  • by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday January 02, 2015 @09:50PM (#48722433)
    It sounds like it is implicit in this law that ISPs are now required to keep records of IP address assignments in the event they are later given a notice of suspected copyright infringement so they can pass it along to their customers. Is this true, or does the law only apply to ISPs that already have this information? I understand most ISPs probably already to keep this information, but does this new law mean that they now have to? And what constitutes an ISP? If I use the free WiFi at Starbucks, do they need to keep my personal info in case I'm later accused of infringing copyright? What about the public library if I have to use my userid to log in? What about universities?
    • If I use the free WiFi at Starbucks, do they need to keep my personal info in case I'm later accused of infringing copyright?

      Do they ask you for ID?
      • Often, yes. It's common at wifi hotspots to be presented with a captive portal. You have to enter your mobile phone number, they text you a code, you enter the code to unlock the portal. That way they have tied your identity to a phone number.

  • ...that VPNs are made illegal or otherwise effectively blocked from operating? I give the golden age of VPNs another three years, tops.

"It ain't over until it's over." -- Casey Stengel

Working...