Internet Access Providers Aren't Bound by Dmca Unmasking Subpoenas–in Re Cox

Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago

hn_acker

145 points

20 comments

blog.ericgoldman.orgTechstory

calmneutral

Debate

60/100

DmcaInternet LawPrivacyCopyright

Key topics

Dmca

Internet Law

Privacy

A court ruling (In Re Cox) has established that internet access providers are not bound by DMCA unmasking subpoenas, sparking discussion on the implications for subscriber privacy and potential recourse for non-compliant IAPs.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Active discussion

First comment

Peak period

Day 3

Avg / period

Comment distribution20 data points

Loading chart...

Based on 20 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
Aug 24, 2025 at 3:20 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Aug 27, 2025 at 7:38 AM EDT
3d after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
12 comments in Day 3
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Sep 2, 2025 at 2:21 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (20 comments)

Showing 20 comments

djoldman

4 months ago

3 replies

But what is the recourse if IAPs in the 9th district ignore the decision and continue to divulge subscriber information?

I assume subscribers must sue the IAP.

idiotsecant

4 months ago

3 replies

I don't think there is any law in the US that ISPs can't give away or sell your data if they want to.

sumtechguy

4 months ago

1 reply

Would have to read thru Tittle II of the communications act and see what portions they are under. Title I is POTs and Title II is ISPs and Cellphone providers. Title I tends to be much more strict.

TrueDuality

4 months ago

Remember that under the last reign of the current present, information services were removed from Title II regulation. Biden did vote to restore the net neutrality status last year but that was challenged in court and never went into effect. It was ultimately overturned in January and we're left without net neutrality protections.

brians

4 months ago

1 reply

Electronic communications privacy act, to start.

brookst

4 months ago

How does that apply? In this case the companies sending subpoenas are saying "who was using IP address w.x.y.z at 10:15am on June 15?". How would ECPA apply, since IIRC, it covers requirements for law enforcement to collect data from telecoms?

bobmcnamara

4 months ago

Several states have privacy laws limiting or requiring disclosure of how their data is used.

If I understand correctly the FTC only prevents companies from selling your data when they've told you they won't.

MrDarcy

4 months ago

1 reply

Contact your state attorney general is also an option.

otterley

4 months ago

1 reply

And demand what, exactly? And under what law?

MrDarcy

4 months ago

1 reply

AG oversees utilities and are granted regulatory powers because they are effectively monopolies.

Explain clearly and reasonably your claim and you will likely see action and response.

otterley

4 months ago

1 reply

AGs can only enforce laws and regulations that are on the books. Being a monopoly doesn’t give AGs some sort of arbitrary control over them. So which law or regulation would they enforce, exactly? It might help if you cited a specific code that says they cannot divulge subscriber information.

voxic11

4 months ago

1 reply

Usually they would go after them for deceptive business practices due to violating their own privacy policy.

otterley

4 months ago

If they violated their own policy, sure. But not every disclosure of customer information is prohibited by policy. The policy should be clear as to what the holder may do and what they won't.

brookst

4 months ago

I think the ruling is that they are not required to, but it does not say they are forbidden to.

Assuming their TOS says they reserve the right to share such information in response to subpoenas / their whims, I'm not sure there would be much recourse unless there's some law forbidding this.

busterarm

4 months ago

1 reply

This is why the IAP I worked at 15 years ago took every unmasking subpoena and routed them to the trash. I was so proud of that.

immibis

4 months ago

2 replies

You can't just ignore a subpoena if you value not being in jail. You have to argue that you don't have to answer it.

busterarm

4 months ago

1 reply

None of them were ever followed up with. So while you're correct in theory, in practice the consequences of it were nonexistent.

Likely because the firm knows that the subpoena that they're sending you is bullshit in the first place. They don't actually want the legal challenge.

margana

4 months ago

1 reply

Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is, but in practice no one would follow up on those.

dragonwriter

4 months ago

> Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is

Not true.

Technically, you are allowed to ignore ANY DMCA takedown. However, if you don't ignore it, and if you otherwise would have been guilty of copyright infringement for hosting the user-provided content at issue, then following the DMCA takedown request will immunize you (that's why it is called a "safe harbor" provision), so, if you aren't 100% certain that it's not wrong, you have a strong motive to respect it.

If the DMCA takedown request was actually fraudulent, then either there was no potentially violating material or the requester wasn't the copyright holder or their agent, so you had no liability to them to immunize against. So you absolute can ignore it as much as you want.

getcrunk

4 months ago

Well thank god corporations can’t be jailed /s

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45006882Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 1:39:00 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN