Change to Email Terms of Sevice

Need Help?

That's what we're here for! The goal of the Rogers Community is to help you find answers on everything Rogers. Can't find what you're looking for? Just ask!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
I'm a Senior Advisor
Posts: 2,153

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

You can also communicate to:

The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, - Joly is directly in charge of the CRTC through Ministry of Canadian Heritage, but as you can see, Bains also is involved in the appointment.

 

For those living in Whitby riding, Celina Caesar-Chavannes who is also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

 

Keep letter writing - Rogers still has not spoken to their roles and responsibilities as our service provider and the ones who chose to use Yahoo, now Oath -  whether they say it is free or not, and I don't agree that it is free, it is a "benefit" provided by them to us as customers and also to keep it is a requirement of paying for their Internet, and they facilitate our access to it through their systems, so obviously they have a contract with both us and Yahoo.

 

They have not spoken to their position on the attempt by Oath to violate Canadian privacy law, and they choose not to explain on behalf of their customers the exact changes in the terms from the old agreement, which we can currently stay on by declining - in general, when a company makes changes to contracts, it is expected to clearly articulate those changes, and I still hold the position that since they provided access (free or not) to the service with the old terms, that they also have the obligation to monitor those changes and educate us.

 

I don't buy it that they can just dump the whole responsibility to us - they chose the company, not us to allow us, in particular those of us who started with Rogers based email on their services, then @home services, then to Yahoo with Rogers claim of value added by making these changes (wonder if Yahoo pays Rogers for access to its customers?, are they a contractual affiliate?)  so many unanswered questions.

 

I will quit when I am satisfied.  I will continue to recommend that my daughter in the states educate those she knows with Yahoo accounts of the attempted breach on Canadian law, which most Americans will be unaware of as why would they read what applies to other countries without being suggested to look there.

 

I also advocate to all my Canadian friends who use Yahoo and in particular Rogers mail.  I did some searching, and could find that only Rogers uses Oath/Yahoo as its outsourced email service.

 

By the way, back in 2009, Hotmail and Sympatico (Bell) changed their combined services, and in this article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bell-microsoft-to-end-online-partnership/article12019...

 

It talks about how much the revenues being pushed in the direction of BCE from the relationship - wonder how much Yahoo pays or makes from this relationship with Rogers.  I can't believe that Rogers is just saving money and that Yahoo doesn't pay for access to us through Rogers.

 

But with no comment by anyone, except the denials of any connection by Rogers, we can only guess.

 

Little did we know just how much this relationship ultimately was costing.  It is a new world and as suggested in one of the media articles, with Facebook Cambridge breaches and the potential manipulation of Facebook through bots and specifically targetting electorial wards, I say, I don't trust any of them unless they tell me exactly what they use my data for and who they give it to, and I have access to their affiliate information and privacy as some other services do provide.

 

I think as the CBC article so well says, this will need to become a legal protection of privacy and explicit control over each detail of our information.  And paying for ad free, I am not sure that fully protects us from using the information in analytics, which is one of the most powerful tools for identifying and targeting groups with information or disinformation that has ever been created.

 

Keep the fight going.

 

Although we have heard nothing from Rogers on the forum on this, I do thank them for giving us the freedom to fully express our views here - if they hadn't, it would be viewed as censorship anyway.  But still thanks.

 

Bruce

I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 33

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice


@BSwrote:

What a great article - basics suggest in the long run, as has been done in the EU, we in Canada need to be pushing for clear legislative laws (which Oath tried to walk around, and pressure from users and I am going to guess, in private and confidentially, Rogers put pressure to - or at least I hope they did - they are going to have to answer to the commissioners question, as has Facebook and Google in the round of meetings started two weeks ago, coincidently, just before this whole mess came forward).

 

So I would also suggest that there needs to be legislation that holds companies like rogers or any company for that matter that refers us to services outside of our country to ensure that those companies live up to the standards of Canadian law and that if they don't they are held accountable - means for a corporation to refer to a service, they must ensure that Canadian Law is met - I hold that Rogers is currently going to have to answer for their role in this because they are the ones who facilitate the use of their domain address, tied to our Rogers accounts, whether they call it free or optional or whatever they want to say (I say it is a part of our service as they provide that service and access, so they are accountable for it no matter who they subcontract to- but I think it is up to our courts and our legislatures to work this one out). I don't see Rogers coming out and saying, "we goofed", but I suspect they have served a role in attempting to get Oath in line with Canadian law.  We will only know once the commission hearings become finalized (maybe).

 

I have been sending this article to everyone I know -  It is our legislatures that the article is suggesting we have to push on, that contract law doesn't apply well in these circumstances.  Interesting though that the railway ruling of over 150 years ago about limiting rights, even if you haven't seen the notices, or even aware of them, has also been overrulled in principle with ski hills, parks, parking lots and others.  Most people don't sue in the courts on this one, but it appears that legal precedence is on our side, but that companies continue to try to convince us (if we even read it, and statistically I agree, most of us probably don't - I didn't use to, I will certainly do so, and often is there an option to opting out - if every parking lot rights the same notices, then where do we park, and then we have to sue).

 

So let's keep this issue up front.

 

This seems to be the trend, consider the new Wireless Code, new principles around transparency and clarity of instrumental terms with telecoms and new privacy laws - this is where we are going anyway.

 

But beware of those clicks when it says, you have read and understand, do not click until you do, and start overloading their systems that do this with questions.  We are hearing that we hear different messages in public form the two corporations Oath and Rogers on this one, and different statements by their staff as we dig for clarification.

 

I haven't had a staff yet that I spoke to disagree with me, and I refused to let them continue on their attempt to tell me it is my responsibility to read and choose - I just said, heard that all before - I am asking about Rogers responsibility in having chosen the company that they favour to give your Rogers email domain name and the ability for us to create 9 emails, one primary - and tied back to the connection that we are a customer with Rogers through the memberscentre (basically created to put more security in than Yahoo did) and it takes it out of their hands, as we, with guidance do all the work and agreeing.  But they picked the service to send us to and connect our services too, free or not (nothing is free, it is part of the service - the availability to create them, and part of their overhead and own privacy rules in the agreements in the members centre itself that is the portal to the mail.

 

As I have said before, you can't have it both ways.

 

Yes, the mice that roared has been very very loud.

 

Bruce


100% agree with you and very well said! 🙂

 

And yes we mice are roaring really loud! 😉

I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 33

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

Sent another email off to the CEO of Rogers.

A copy of this email was sent to Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

 

Dear Mr. Rogers CEO last name,

Have been reading the updated article in the Globe and Mail in which you are quoted as saying:

“We take that very, very seriously at Rogers. We believe in protecting our customers’ privacy and confidentiality. We believe in doing everything in our power to make sure we maintain that,”.
“We’ve got to be on the front line of that. We’ve got to be the organization that speaks up, stands up for the customer.”

That's good to hear.

What I would like to know from you is whether or not Rogers is going to sever ties with Oath or make sure they are held accountable if they violate privacy rights of customers who accept their TOS.

Being a former Rogers agent myself having worked for Radio Shack Canada as an assistant manager for quite a few years we enjoyed a partnership with Rogers by selling the Rogers internet starter kits and activated cell phones.

rogers.com emails have been around for many years as you well know. When I got my internet service with Rogers my contract includes rogers.com email addresses which I pay for as part of my internet package.

I signed up with Rogers and not Yahoo. Rogers subcontracted the rogers.com email addresses to Yahoo and Yahoo only hosts the rogers.com email addresses on their email servers. The rogers.com email addresses are owned by Rogers.

Have spoken with many a Yahoo tech support agent and manager and they cannot access my rogers.com email accounts if I have been locked out of my rogers.com email accounts. Only a Rogers tech support agent can do that.

Have been hearing that some Rogers agents have been saying those rogers.com email accounts are complimentary and free. This is not the case nor is that information correct. Those rogers.com email addresses are not free and never ever were. They are(as I have mentioned earlier) included in the Rogers internet package price. I have read my internet service contract very carefully and that of my own customers who have Rogers for their internet service. I run a computer consulting business. And as a former Rogers agent I am also very familiar with any service contracts with Rogers.

My recommendation to my clients is not to click on acceptance of the Oath TOS and I am not doing that either. Oath in my honest and professional opinion is trying to bypass our Canadian privacy laws and not being completely transparent about their TOS.

And I am also concerned that one Rogers agent told me that Rogers may no longer have email service. That is very disturbing. It does not make any sense to me at all that any internet service provider not having an email service. I am sure that you will agree with me about that.

Rogers in my honest opinion can have an excellent email service for Rogers customers and agents who have rogers.com emails on their own server with being reliant on another corporate entity. I am sincerely hoping that this is what you'll be implementing. This would make many Rogers agents and customers very happy, myself included.

I do realize that you are very, very busy with this very important issue and would very much like to receive a response from you personally and am formally requesting that, since I am directing these questions to you directly.

Thank you for your time with respect to this very important matter.

respectfully,
My First and Last Name

 

 

I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 33

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice


@BSwrote:

You can also communicate to:

The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, - Joly is directly in charge of the CRTC through Ministry of Canadian Heritage, but as you can see, Bains also is involved in the appointment.

 

For those living in Whitby riding, Celina Caesar-Chavannes who is also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

 

Keep letter writing - Rogers still has not spoken to their roles and responsibilities as our service provider and the ones who chose to use Yahoo, now Oath -  whether they say it is free or not, and I don't agree that it is free, it is a "benefit" provided by them to us as customers and also to keep it is a requirement of paying for their Internet, and they facilitate our access to it through their systems, so obviously they have a contract with both us and Yahoo.

 

They have not spoken to their position on the attempt by Oath to violate Canadian privacy law, and they choose not to explain on behalf of their customers the exact changes in the terms from the old agreement, which we can currently stay on by declining - in general, when a company makes changes to contracts, it is expected to clearly articulate those changes, and I still hold the position that since they provided access (free or not) to the service with the old terms, that they also have the obligation to monitor those changes and educate us.

 

I don't buy it that they can just dump the whole responsibility to us - they chose the company, not us to allow us, in particular those of us who started with Rogers based email on their services, then @home services, then to Yahoo with Rogers claim of value added by making these changes (wonder if Yahoo pays Rogers for access to its customers?, are they a contractual affiliate?)  so many unanswered questions.

 

I will quit when I am satisfied.  I will continue to recommend that my daughter in the states educate those she knows with Yahoo accounts of the attempted breach on Canadian law, which most Americans will be unaware of as why would they read what applies to other countries without being suggested to look there.

 

I also advocate to all my Canadian friends who use Yahoo and in particular Rogers mail.  I did some searching, and could find that only Rogers uses Oath/Yahoo as its outsourced email service.

 

By the way, back in 2009, Hotmail and Sympatico (Bell) changed their combined services, and in this article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bell-microsoft-to-end-online-partnership/article12019...

 

It talks about how much the revenues being pushed in the direction of BCE from the relationship - wonder how much Yahoo pays or makes from this relationship with Rogers.  I can't believe that Rogers is just saving money and that Yahoo doesn't pay for access to us through Rogers.

 

But with no comment by anyone, except the denials of any connection by Rogers, we can only guess.

 

Little did we know just how much this relationship ultimately was costing.  It is a new world and as suggested in one of the media articles, with Facebook Cambridge breaches and the potential manipulation of Facebook through bots and specifically targetting electorial wards, I say, I don't trust any of them unless they tell me exactly what they use my data for and who they give it to, and I have access to their affiliate information and privacy as some other services do provide.

 

I think as the CBC article so well says, this will need to become a legal protection of privacy and explicit control over each detail of our information.  And paying for ad free, I am not sure that fully protects us from using the information in analytics, which is one of the most powerful tools for identifying and targeting groups with information or disinformation that has ever been created.

 

Keep the fight going.

 

Although we have heard nothing from Rogers on the forum on this, I do thank them for giving us the freedom to fully express our views here - if they hadn't, it would be viewed as censorship anyway.  But still thanks.

 

Bruce


Very, very well said!

Am keeping on calling, email and also letter writing.

And I too am keeping up the fight!

 

Take note of what is says here:

Data Collection, Use and Disclosure: In order to provide you with these services, better understand your needs, and offer you related services, Rogers and Yahoo collect and use information about you when you use the Internet Service, and may share this data between them. Your personal information will not be sold or leased and will not be provided to third parties for marketing purposes without your express consent.

Security and Confidentiality: Rogers and Yahoo are committed to protecting the security of your information and keeping it confidential. Data is stored in controlled facilities, protected from unauthorized access and kept only as long as it is reasonably required. Where we hire other companies to provide services on our behalf, we only provide them with the personal information they need to provide the service. They are required to keep the information confidential and secure and may not use it for any other purpose.

 

If it were Yahoo's full accountability only in the TOS, Rogers wouldn't be mentioned at all.

We had a somewhat similar TOS when I worked for Radio Shack Canada when we had a partnership with Rogers and sold Rogers products and services to customers both corporate and personal.

 

 

 

I'm a Senior Advisor
Posts: 2,153

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

Also note:  I was looking at the following link to Rogers/Yahoo Internet services.

 

https://policies.oath.com/ca/en/rogers/privacy/index.html

 

Note the following at the bottom:  "

If you have any questions or concerns about your privacy relating to the Internet Service, you may call a Rogers Customer Service Representative or send an e-mail to privacy@rci.rogers.com.

™ Rogers Communications Inc. used with permission."

 

The policy on the oath website refers directly to the relationship between Rogers and Oath for Internet services, and in the products section it describes all of those services, not just mail.  Note that many of these are accessible via the RogersMemberCentre portal.

 

Both the Rogers and Oath seperate policies are found there - no connection they claim??

 

Also read under Controls:

 

Control: You may choose not to receive marketing material or offers from the Rogers companies about their products and services. Please contact a Rogers Customer Service Representative if you do not wish to receive this information. You will not receive marketing material or special offers from Yahoo or other parties unless you request such materials.

 

Let's not forget the earlier version now changed where we gave permission to market to our contacts!!

 

So no relationship between Rogers and Yahoo - I beg to differ.

 

And explicitly, the page tells us to contact Rogers, not Yahoo

although it speaks about "The Internet Service", which is labelled at the top as

Rogers Hi-Speed Internet (the "Internet Service")

 

So are we talking about privacy concerns about Oath or Rogers.

 

Allow me to break the actual last paragraph apart:

 

If you have any questions or concerns about your privacy relating to the Internet Service, you may call a Rogers Customer Service Representative or send an e-mail to privacy@rci.rogers.com.

 

Since at the top, it defines the internet service as Rogers Hi-Speed Internet, I guess they could argue that the last clause is directed about privacy concerns of the Rogers Hi-Speed Internet, not Oath services.

 

Now this is what is suggested to be clear and transparent.

 

I have read this over and over many times, others have done the comparison of the two separate policies, and first time I put that grammatical presentation of phrasing in that last paragraph, would implicitly, not explicitly states it is about Rogers, not Oath, yet provides no information on the same page as how to contact Oath.

 

I suggest that this presentation is intended to obfuscate the clarity of the phrase, by not mentioning Yahoo oath, and using the defined shortened term the internet services, it is clearly intended to confuse, like much of the policy.

 

One of the benefits you received when you subscribed to the Internet Service is your ability to use your Rogers ID and password to access and subscribe to a broad variety of Yahoo services ("Yahoo Services") across Yahoo's worldwide network. To the extent you choose to access or subscribe to any Yahoo Services outside of the Internet Service using your Rogers ID, you agree that your use of the Yahoo Services you select will be subject exclusively to the applicable Yahoo Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which you will find in links available at the bottom of the relevant service page.

 

This is the clause that eliminates Rogers policies in their applicability - so why provide Rogers link to policies??  And also note that the links are not always available at the bottom of the relevant service page - some are in the settings.

 

And they use the Rogers term of benefits, them just to be sure, explicitly state that we are exclusively under the Yahoo terms.  I don't know about others, but let's consider benefits as defined under an insurance policy - we pay premiums and receive benefits - I also receive the benefit of accessing Internet (kind of playing with words like optional).

 

Did it always say these things in the policy change of last year 2017, or earlier. I don't know at this point, can only deal with what is front of me.

 

This is a very careful example of word craftsmanship - the skill to use words to say what ever you want them to mean without being explicit, not uncommon in these types of terms, and far from being transparent, by the end of reading it, I know I am very confused, and it takes many readings, and breaking down each sentence and paragraph and related paragraph very carefully to figure out how it all interconnects.  This is the practice of legalistic documents designed to protect the writer, not us the consumer.

 

While explicitly stating: "Personal information collected for the Internet Service may be stored and processed in Canada, the United States or other countries and may be subject to the legal jurisdiction of these countries."

 

They attempted to circumvent explicitly Canadian law (we won that battle for now, but as others have said be aware that they can change the policy at any time without notice and I don't know about anyone, but I have no reason to trust either company at this time.  Oath got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and Rogers got caught, ignoring who was in the cookie jar and what they were doing in there.Smiley Mad

 

By the way, this speaks to the personal information of the Internet Service - again, that is Rogers Hi-Speed Internet - may be stored and processed in Canada, the United States or other countries and may be subject to the legal jurisdiction of these countries.

 

So just where is our information being stored, and why does a service that Rogers says is Rogers responsibility, does this document speak to storage of Rogers collected personal information of its customers.

 

Confused yet - more light keeps coming through the darkness, while Rogers tries hard to keep the blackout blinds closed.

 

I think that is the point, this whole escapade is designed to completely confuse and relies on the belief stated in the CBC article on click policies, that the majority of people don't read these policies - guilty as charged, but never again on my part and that is why I haven't stopped talking.

 

Until I see stronger legislation, a public response from Rogers, or exposure of their role in the commission hearings, we have to keep fighting for privacy policies that at least protect Canadian citizens.  If our uproar also highlights it on the world stage somewhat, all the better.

 

Next up to the plate.  Smiley Indifferent

 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

Highlighted
I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 27

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

I'm a Senior Advisor
Posts: 2,153

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

Glad to see that the media is still pushing on this - I couldn't read the Globe one - I have viewed the limit I can for free in a month and don't have a subscription.

 

Only 10 complaints to the commission as reported in the Star I would have thought more - I had held off because I was giving Rogers a chance, but the star article also said that the commission was continuing to investigate.  It doesn't say whether it was in response to the commission or other pressure that led them to change - wonder which straw broke the Oath's back.

 

Bruce

I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 264

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice


@BSwrote:

I couldn't read the Globe one - I have viewed the limit I can for free in a month and don't have a subscription.



Try a different browser.  I find that works when I hit the limit.  I have 4 different browsers on my Linux system.

I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 24

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

Excellent!
I'm a Senior Advisor
Posts: 2,153

Re: Change to Email Terms of Sevice

There is a citytv article on it too - has hit all the major news outlets today.

 

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/05/01/yahoo-and-parent-oath-remove-canada-specific-clause-from-terms...

 

Was thinking - even with only 10 official complaints reported, it shows that the commission takes the concerns from Canadians reported to them very seriously.

 

"A statement from the privacy commissioner’s office on Tuesday said it had received 10 complaints to date, some about other aspects of the terms of service, and it has launched an investigation involving Rogers, Yahoo and Oath."

 

Glad we have them looking out for us - we saw how committed Rogers was to help us or acknowledge it, and how Oath even tried to do it in the first place.  Ignorance of Canadian law, if it was actually ignorance and not an attempt to skirt around the law is not an excuse as has always been said.

 

So maybe Rogers had a role - but I don't think we will ever hear from them - just my view - and Oath has made no effort to let us know that they changed it - wouldn't it require a new notice to us, but then again, even if you accepted it, they don't have to disclose any changes in policy to us, so what could be a courtesy, I don't think they are going to mention it, because they are under investigation.  This is their mess and Rogers mess, and now they answer to the authorities of our govenment for what is viewed as a violation - enough that the commission is investigating Rogers, Yahoo and Oath.

 

We mice that roared and the others who did it in other place, we learn you don't have to roar too loud on issues like this one, in particlar when the commission had already just opened an investigation into future privacy and current practices starting with Facebok and Google, now Oath and Rogers has got themselves through their own action/inaction into that larger commission meetings, and looks like a seperate investigation.

 

By the way, it was just announced today that Twitter was identified to be involved with Cambridge - how far do the tenticles of Cambridge go and why I hope that in the change in laws, companies have to explicitly provide who their customers of the data consumed from our service usage are so that we can see what they do, and hopefully that we can have access to just what their buyers are doing with our data.

 

And to also build in options that we can opt out of anthing we disagree with, and still be able to consume other services.  Also heard that the company that Snowden used for email the one who shut down their business and destroyed their records and servers rather than give information to the US government is back in business and has built a self destuct box that destoys the SSL records, so that once gone, access to any data is gone with it.

 

So the issue of privacy - thank you Cambridge, Facebook, bots, the american election for highlighting the issues of where privacy has gone when we weren't looking (we were looking, but maybe a bit too trustful) is really becoming a serious one world wide.

 

Keep the news coming.  It reinforces my belief that if we want change, find others who believe the same, and start talking and educating.

 

Bruce