Cellphone cheater says Rogers bill outed her

[Spekio]

As for damages, I don't know if Canada uses juries for civil cases, but she'll never get a jury to agree with her, adulterers have a very low trust quotient.

Here in Brazil they don't. Hence if she can convince a judge (who hopefully has some grasp on the law) that your privacy has been breached, specifically, had divulged information that otherwise wouldn't be availiable without a warrant, she could get a large sum. I would argue that not only I needed compensation, that any value lower than that would be "pocket change" in the eyes of a multi-million dollar company, and that my indenization has re-education purposes too.

[eion]

As for damages, I don't know if Canada uses juries for civil cases, but she'll never get a jury to agree with her, adulterers have a very low trust quotient.

Here in Brazil they don't. Hence if she can convince a judge (who hopefully has some grasp on the law) that your privacy has been breached, specifically, had divulged information that otherwise wouldn't be availiable without a warrant, she could get a large sum. I would argue that not only I needed compensation, that any value lower than that would be "pocket change" in the eyes of a multi-million dollar company, and that my indenization has re-education purposes too.

I think a judge would want to see some evidence of intent to harm on the part of Rogers. They were acting in good faith, as far as I can see. Again, a judge is going to ask why, if the woman was trying to hide her infidelity (One might argue the infidelity represents an intent to harm her marriage) did she not aquire a prepaid cell phone.

But if SCOTUS is anything to go by, the Judge might not be aware that cellphones can be pre-paid and untraceable.

[Phantasee]

Canada doesn't do such large awards in civil cases. She'll maybe get something for lost wages, a few cents for pain and suffering maybe, and possibly Rogers will pay a few dimes for punitive damages.

That's best case, for the woman. Likely case is she has no real case and it turns out she did give permission or something. Bundle home phone, internet, and cell phone for savings? Sure!

[ShadowDragon8685]

Sorry I wrote in a way that confused you, Kendall.

I didn't mean that the woman deserved at least six hundred grand, I meant she deserved recompensation for her material losses and reasonable losses from no longer having access to her husband's income and resources.

What I do think, though, is that the company needs to be on the recieving end of an almighty lumberjack-strength financial bitchslap for such an aggregious breach of privacy. Here in Eagleland, the only sort of way we have to do this is to award the damages to the plaintiff, which results in people seeking to be hurt by a company so they can take 'em to the cleaners, and if it's all we've got I'm not opposed to a efw people making it really huge by taking companies for a ride (though really it's the lawyers taking 'em both for a ride...) But.........

I don't know for sure about things up in Soviet Canuckistan, but since you maple-leap commies tend to have saner heads than people with hot (McDonald's) apple pie for brains, I'd think you guys could come up with a nice medium: pay the aggrieved party her due, then haul back and really sock it to the company in question, taking that second chunk of cash and funneling it into the state's (nation's) coffers.

[Lagmonster]

It will all depend on whether the woman agreed to be co-authority for billing when the other services were ordered. If she did, she could easily have given her husband authority to access to all of her Rogers billing information via the Rogers billing website even if she hadn't meant to, because that's how the system works. I know my wife and I had separate cell phones before getting married, and when we did and ordered jointly cable and internet, our cell bills got joined together the moment we ordered amalgamated billing. For that, my wife only needed to answer some personal questions about me, such as my birth date.

Personally, I vote fuck her, but that wouldn't be very legally responsible.

[Lagmonster]

Sorry I wrote in a way that confused you, Kendall.

I didn't mean that the woman deserved at least six hundred grand, I meant she deserved recompensation for her material losses and reasonable losses from no longer having access to her husband's income and resources.

See, that I disagree with. Rogers' didn't cost her access to her husband's money - her infidelity did. Rogers could be fined for the breach of privacy assuming the law protects billing information from one's spouse, but I wouldn't accept them being found responsible for the husband's response to recieving that information.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Sorry I wrote in a way that confused you, Kendall.

I didn't mean that the woman deserved at least six hundred grand, I meant she deserved recompensation for her material losses and reasonable losses from no longer having access to her husband's income and resources.

See, that I disagree with. Rogers' didn't cost her access to her husband's money - her infidelity did. Rogers could be fined for the breach of privacy assuming the law protects billing information from one's spouse, but I wouldn't accept them being found responsible for the husband's response to recieving that information.

It's the only reasonable outcome - they are the ones responsible.

This is the attitue I'm talking about "She was an infidel, fuck her." That is fucking immaterial. It could as easily have been a case of her supporting a pollitical party or stance her husband found so objectionable that he divorced her over. Would you say then that "Rogers' didn't cost her her access to her husband's money - her politics did."

[Ghost Rider]

Sorry I wrote in a way that confused you, Kendall.

I didn't mean that the woman deserved at least six hundred grand, I meant she deserved recompensation for her material losses and reasonable losses from no longer having access to her husband's income and resources.

See, that I disagree with. Rogers' didn't cost her access to her husband's money - her infidelity did. Rogers could be fined for the breach of privacy assuming the law protects billing information from one's spouse, but I wouldn't accept them being found responsible for the husband's response to recieving that information.

It's the only reasonable outcome - they are the ones responsible.

This is the attitue I'm talking about "She was an infidel, fuck her." That is fucking immaterial. It could as easily have been a case of her supporting a pollitical party or stance her husband found so objectionable that he divorced her over. Would you say then that "Rogers' didn't cost her her access to her husband's money - her politics did."

Her politics is far harder to prove that it constituted as misconduct and wrongdoing to said spouse. Her infidelity has been proven and in the courts is far easier to demonstrate as such. In fact adultery is the most common of such things, thus your analogy is flawed to say in the least.

[Lagmonster]

This is the attitue I'm talking about "She was an infidel, fuck her." That is fucking immaterial. It could as easily have been a case of her supporting a pollitical party or stance her husband found so objectionable that he divorced her over. Would you say then that "Rogers' didn't cost her her access to her husband's money - her politics did."

Any reasonable person would have *expected* to be forced into a divorce over marital infidelity. I would find it mind-boggling if someone broke their promise, lied and hid it so they could CONTINUE doing so, and then act surprised at the consequences when they get caught.

She is well within her rights to blame Rogers for violating her right to customer privacy (unless they didn't, as I mentioned could be the case depending on what she agreed to when ordering the additional services), to which specific monetary fines may apply. But that's it; the divorce was the expected consequence of her actions, not Rogers'.

[Resinence]

It's the only reasonable outcome - they are the ones responsible.

This is the attitue I'm talking about "She was an infidel, fuck her." That is fucking immaterial. It could as easily have been a case of her supporting a pollitical party or stance her husband found so objectionable that he divorced her over. Would you say then that "Rogers' didn't cost her her access to her husband's money - her politics did."

Yes. I would.

Women are not entitled to access to their husbands money if they are no longer married to him, unless in the case of child support and thats not hers its to support the children, if you think thats unfair (which would make you a worthless cretin) - you can hilariously blame feminism for no-fault divorces. If she had divorced him for political reasons anyone would laugh in your face if you tried to argue he was entitled to continued access to her resources.

She is entitled to a payout for the violation of her privacy, but not for the loss of access to her husbands resources. It has nothing to do with whether she cheated on him or not. Except that that was the reason for the divorce.

[Edi]

Whether Rogers actually did anything wrong depends on how the data protection laws in Canada are formulated. If amalgamated billing is within the bounds of the law and if outgoing call information or other data belonging to the category of telecommunications identification data (IP addresses, phone numbers, MAC addresses, operator connection numbers and a host of other things) can be given out by telecommunications operators in this manner, the woman is completely shit out of luck.

Here you can't show that kind of data on a normal bill. You can show some telecoms id data in a specific billing statement if the customer requests it, but only the owner of the subscription can order one (so if e.g. all of a family's phones are in the name of the husband, only he can do that even if the wife uses one phone exclusively). The only way it could be done by someone else is if you give power of attorney in this respect or it's a joint account.

If in this case there was either a joint account or power of attorney related to the Rogers subscriptions, again it's tough shit.

I would not judge the company unless I had actually read the entire text of the relevant laws, since there could be a lot of stuff there. The woman? Screw her. She brought it on herself and now she must suffer the consequences. Losing her job is solely due to her inability to control herself and losing her husband is the least surprising thing about all this. The articles make her sound like a self-centered, spoiled little bitch with an entitlement complex.

[Dominus Atheos]

Whether Rogers actually did anything wrong depends on how the data protection laws in Canada are formulated. If amalgamated billing is within the bounds of the law and if outgoing call information or other data belonging to the category of telecommunications identification data (IP addresses, phone numbers, MAC addresses, operator connection numbers and a host of other things) can be given out by telecommunications operators in this manner, the woman is completely shit out of luck.

It wouldn't count as amalgamated billing if the bills were in separate names. Taking two bills from two different services under two different names and combining them under one name just because they're billed to the same address should be illegal. If I had a roommate with a cellphone and they combined their bill onto my internet bill I'd be fucking pissed. Especially I'd be livid beyond words if my roommate had hundreds of dollars of overages one month and the bill collectors started calling me about it.

If Rogers really is doing that, then they need to be smacked around in court hard.

[Phantasee]

Whether Rogers actually did anything wrong depends on how the data protection laws in Canada are formulated. If amalgamated billing is within the bounds of the law and if outgoing call information or other data belonging to the category of telecommunications identification data (IP addresses, phone numbers, MAC addresses, operator connection numbers and a host of other things) can be given out by telecommunications operators in this manner, the woman is completely shit out of luck.

Bell has done that for quite a while and Rogers started doing that to my bill a year or so back. I used to think a 5 page bill was excessive, then I saw my father's 20 page bill listing all his calls (and my sister's, since they are on a Bell family plan). And now I get 12-15 pages a month detailing my calls. Nobody lists IP addresses because then you end up with 300 page bills.

[Edi]

Wow. That's fucked up. Here you could have maybe a four page bill if you had four subscriptions billed to the same account, because the itemized portion only lists the types of numbers (billing classes) that were called how many times (e.g. 165 calls to cellular numbers of the same operator etc.), but not the individually specified call sheets, which the account owner would have to order separately.

Then again, our telecoms data protection laws are absolutely draconian compared to the US and seemingly to Canada as well. It's an instant firing offense at my workplace to disclose telecoms id data to unauthorized recipients if the management thinks it's necessary to be that harsh. Most of the time you would get a warning, but if you did it intentionally, you'd be out the door so fast you'd break the sound barrier.

[General Mung Beans]

So now an adulteress gets to sue a company because her crimes were exposed? Utterly ridiculous.

[eion]

So now an adulteress gets to sue a company because her crimes were exposed? Utterly ridiculous.

Um, Adultery is not a crime, at least not in any civilized country like Canada. Cause for the dissolution of a contract (Marriage is merely a contract, after all), but not a criminal offense.

[General Mung Beans]

So now an adulteress gets to sue a company because her crimes were exposed? Utterly ridiculous.

Um, Adultery is not a crime, at least not in any civilized country like Canada. Cause for the dissolution of a contract (Marriage is merely a contract, after all), but not a criminal offense.

It may not be a crime but its not something to be proud of or defended either. Also do you not consider Republic of Korea to be a civilizied nation as that country still criminalizes adultery?

[eion]

It may not be a crime but its not something to be proud of or defended either. Also do you not consider Republic of Korea to be a civilizied nation as that country still criminalizes adultery?

Smoking cigars, eating fatty foods, burping, and picking your nose may not be something to be proud of or defended, but they are, and ought to be, legal. Vice is not crime.

On that count: No they are not a civilized country. Nor is Saudi Arabia, or any of the other localities (to include my own Virginia where adultery is still on the books, I believe) that criminalize private, consensual sexual behavior.

Adultery laws equate marriage with ownership. Signing a marriage contract does not grant the parties the right to CONTROL their partner. If they think adultery is a one-shot kill to their marriage, write it into a pre-nup, don’t waste my money investigating and prosecuting the private sexual acts of others.

I’ll defend anybody’s right to cheat on their partner. I’ll also defend anybody’s right to leave their partner for cheating. But what might be considered cheating by one group would not be considered cheating by another, so it’s pointless to try to enforce fidelity through legal action.

You said it was a crime. It isn't. You are, once again, an idiot.

[General Mung Beans]

It may not be a crime but its not something to be proud of or defended either. Also do you not consider Republic of Korea to be a civilizied nation as that country still criminalizes adultery?

Smoking cigars, eating fatty foods, burping, and picking your nose may not be something to be proud of or defended, but they are, and ought to be, legal. Vice is not crime.

If you are saying that "I'm suing the telephone company because they ended up exposing my affair" you're defending adultery indirectly.

On that count: No they are not a civilized country. Nor is Saudi Arabia, or any of the other localities (to include my own Virginia where adultery is still on the books, I believe) that criminalize private, consensual sexual behavior.

That's simply an old law people forgot to repeal and certainly is not even remotely enforced.

Adultery laws equate marriage with ownership. Signing a marriage contract does not grant the parties the right to CONTROL their partner. If they think adultery is a one-shot kill to their marriage, write it into a pre-nup, don’t waste my money investigating and prosecuting the private sexual acts of others.

I’ll defend anybody’s right to cheat on their partner. I’ll also defend anybody’s right to leave their partner for cheating. But what might be considered cheating by one group would not be considered cheating by another, so it’s pointless to try to enforce fidelity through legal action.

You said it was a crime. It isn't. You are, once again, an idiot.

I meant a moral crime.

[Stark]

If crime is something illegal, how can it be a 'moral crime'? It might be morally wrong, but that's nothing to do with law (or arguably even justice).

[General Mung Beans]

If crime is something illegal, how can it be a 'moral crime'? It might be morally wrong, but that's nothing to do with law (or arguably even justice).

Because I think its a crime against God. Although you probably don't.

[Ghost Rider]

If crime is something illegal, how can it be a 'moral crime'? It might be morally wrong, but that's nothing to do with law (or arguably even justice).

Because I think its a crime against God. Although you probably don't.

You do understand that doesn't make it a crime, right? I mean fucking christ on a stick, what you believe is Divine or Moral law is not so given we are not holding a court case with God as the judge on this. So again, your argument is an inept subjective jabbering on objective thought?

[Alyeska]

If crime is something illegal, how can it be a 'moral crime'? It might be morally wrong, but that's nothing to do with law (or arguably even justice).

Because I think its a crime against God. Although you probably don't.

Lets take what you first said again.

So now an adulteress gets to sue a company because her crimes were exposed? Utterly ridiculous.

Why the fuck should we apply religion to a fucking contract dispute?

[mr friendly guy]

If crime is something illegal, how can it be a 'moral crime'? It might be morally wrong, but that's nothing to do with law (or arguably even justice).

Because I think its a crime against God. Although you probably don't.

Then God can come down and try and enforce his law. Until then I will wait with baited breath for that to happen and defer to the law of people thank you very much.

[eion]

If you are saying that "I'm suing the telephone company because they ended up exposing my affair" you're defending adultery indirectly.

No, she's suing because the cell phone company exposed private information to a person she believes should not have had access to it. It's as if Rogers had given her information to a random stranger. That is her argument; I think she's an idiot who's trying to blame someone else for her problems, but mine is not a legal argument.

…Nor is Saudi Arabia, or any of the other localities (to include my own Virginia where adultery is still on the books, I believe) that criminalize private, consensual sexual behavior.

That's simply an old law people forgot to repeal and certainly is not even remotely enforced.

You are a fucking idiot. A law remaining on the books means it is enforceable by any DA who wishes to do so. VA's adultery law could be used to deny a person a job, used as evidence to take away custody of their children, or simpley to harass people. Say by a former lover.

You said it was a crime. It isn't. You are, once again, an idiot.

I meant a moral crime.

That's a nonsensical statement. A crime is by definition the violation of a criminal code. Now in a theocracy, the religious code and the criminal code are one and the same, and while the U.S. might qualify in some sense as a theocracy, one would be hard pressed to define Canada as one.

You sir, are an idiot. The sooner you stop acting like one, the sooner I stop calling you one.