Monday 1st September 2014Login | Register
Pages: 1 ... 113 114 [115] 116 117 ... 140

Plusnet will give your personal details to ACS Law with not informing you!!

« Reply #1824 on 04/10/2010, 18:12 »
All;

I was at the adjournment hearing today and I'd like to thank the team for working the weekend in pulling this together.   However, we have gone further than the twitter update provides.  To clarify:

The incident involving the ACS Law data leak has further damaged people’s confidence in the current process.  We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future.

We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS Law prompted us to take further action today.

We are also seeking a moratorium on outstanding applications and orders.

Thanks,

Fletch
Fletch
Logged
  • M Steve
  • Posts: 4804
  • Get Your Game On
  • View Profile
« Reply #1825 on 04/10/2010, 18:19 »
We are also seeking a moratorium on outstanding applications and orders. How confident are Plusnet In being granted this?
Logged
« Reply #1826 on 04/10/2010, 18:29 »
I was at the adjournment hearing today

<snip>

Fletch

Good.

Now we know you can do the right thing when it matters.

Now that we know you can - we don't expect any less in the future.

If you ever mess up again, like you have done until now on this issue, you will never be allowed to forget it. You get one chance - and you've already used it.

You need to sustain this improvement.

Good man.  Wink
Logged
« Reply #1827 on 04/10/2010, 18:32 »
Guardian report of todays hearing http://www.guardian.co.uk...-property-data-protection
Logged
« Reply #1828 on 04/10/2010, 18:44 »
I was at the adjournment hearing today...
On about my 3rd reading of your message Fletch, I seemed to read the bit I quote for the first time Smiley thanks for being there personally.  Would you perhaps be able to give us a laymens report on what happened? i.e. who said what?  The hearing seemed to take slightly less than 2 hours, so I presume some arguments were presented.  I don't ask that you comment on what happened, merely report.
Logged
« Reply #1829 on 04/10/2010, 18:50 »
Thanks Fletch,

If only you had done that 6 months ago we would all be a lot happier.
Logged
« Reply #1830 on 04/10/2010, 19:18 »
Fletch, I echo what others have said and I appreciate you taking the time to attend the hearing. I hope this is the start of the end for these companies and their business model. However we must not forget that these methods of data capture are exactly the same as will be used for the digital economy act. So in future it will not be a tinpot law firm but the British Government.
Logged
« Reply #1831 on 04/10/2010, 19:25 »
hum, how come in the guardian article plusnet only get a wee mention, come on bt stop making bt broadband look good in all this, as today has taught me that bt do not want to help customers on there forum by way off removing links to PN and open rights website i posted.

utter rubbish and if it was not for PN / forum acs would probably still be getting away with murder and isp's would of brushed all the leaked emails news under the carpet and carried on the way they was doing

Plusnet fight for your rep here and stop letting bt  broadband get the hero's news article's

« Last Edit: 04/10/2010, 19:27 by Asbo Dog »

Logged
« Reply #1832 on 04/10/2010, 19:36 »
I was at the adjournment hearing today and I'd like to thank the team for working the weekend in pulling this together.   

Now that's better. Thanks Fletch.
twitter / beeare
Logged
« Reply #1833 on 04/10/2010, 19:49 »
OK

Whatever has happened until now - big thumbs up for Plusnet today. They have delivered on what they promised - not only to argue for an adjournment, but to win one. Well done! And I'll add my thanks to Fletch for the personal attention.

Now the work starts. You have just over 3 months to prepare a solid, water tight case.

The NPO orders MUST be contested on ALL of the following grounds:


1 - Data Protection security - clearly the people receiving the data are not to be trusted.
2 - Data quality. Given the previously mentioned holes in the data supplied by plusnet to ACS Law, then there is something seriously wrong with the data. Either the harvesters are collecting a random bunch of IP's with no basis in reality, and it just so happens that 75% were in use by someone at the time (in this case almost certainly not the guilty parties), or the plusnet logs are so inaccurate that they can only line up 75% of the requested IP's - which then calls into question the accuracy of the remaining data. Either way, it is wholly inadequate for the actions being taken.
3 - The fact that IP's only identify the connection, not the culprit.
4 - That the level of damages being requested is completely out of proportion to the realistically calculable damages, as indicated by ACS Laws OWN INTERNAL ASSESSMENT.
5 - The potential for wireless hacking.

Further, as an immediate action to protect customers from future actions (given the known data quality issues), Plusnet should delete log data older than 6 months, and ensure future logs are kept no longer than the mandated duration.


Once that is achieved, then the industry can, if it likes, work on a foolproof way (if that will ever be possible) of identifying the guilty without persecuting the innocent.
Logged
« Reply #1834 on 04/10/2010, 19:52 »
BBC report of todays proceedings http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11467347

Quote
BSKyB were not represented at today's hearing.
No? Really?  Hands up all those that are not surprised  Roll Eyes
Logged
  • Oldjim
  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 28142
  • View Profile
« Reply #1835 on 04/10/2010, 19:57 »
Doesn't mention whether Be were there or not
Jim

Old Harry Rocks
Logged
« Reply #1836 on 04/10/2010, 20:00 »
Im suspecting that means they were there, but said little or nothing of interest.
Logged
« Reply #1837 on 04/10/2010, 20:03 »
OK

Whatever has happened until now - big thumbs up for Plusnet today. They have delivered on what they promised - not only to argue for an adjournment, but to win one. Well done! And I'll add my thanks to Fletch for the personal attention.

Now the work starts. You have just over 3 months to prepare a solid, water tight case.

The NPO orders MUST be contested on ALL of the following grounds:


1 - Data Protection security - clearly the people receiving the data are not to be trusted.
2 - Data quality. Given the previously mentioned holes in the data supplied by plusnet to ACS Law, then there is something seriously wrong with the data. Either the harvesters are collecting a random bunch of IP's with no basis in reality, and it just so happens that 75% were in use by someone at the time (in this case almost certainly not the guilty parties), or the plusnet logs are so inaccurate that they can only line up 75% of the requested IP's - which then calls into question the accuracy of the remaining data. Either way, it is wholly inadequate for the actions being taken.
3 - The fact that IP's only identify the connection, not the culprit.
4 - That the level of damages being requested is completely out of proportion to the realistically calculable damages, as indicated by ACS Laws OWN INTERNAL ASSESSMENT.
5 - The potential for wireless hacking.

Further, as an immediate action to protect customers from future actions (given the known data quality issues), Plusnet should delete log data older than 6 months, and ensure future logs are kept no longer than the mandated duration.


Once that is achieved, then the industry can, if it likes, work on a foolproof way (if that will ever be possible) of identifying the guilty without persecuting the innocent.

Absolutely.  I would also like to pass my thanks to Fletch, thats more like what we wanted to hear.

Rupert29
Logged
« Reply #1838 on 04/10/2010, 20:04 »
I know Plusnets Tech, and god forbid, even BT's tech know all this already, but just in case that knowledge hasn't made its way to BT's barrister please make sure your legal team (Plusnets) read this and anyone wanting to know what most of the problem are concerning the practice of sending letters to apparent IP users then thats a very good grounding too.
Logged
« Reply #1839 on 04/10/2010, 20:06 »
I would comment that the BBC article (the nearest we're likely to see to an unbiased report) notes that:

Quote
BT lawyers asked for the adjournment, saying that the firm needed to see details of the security system that will be used to store its customers' data before it could comply with any order.

There is no mention of any other concerns about the process being raised by the BT Legal Team.

This doesn't quite align with gist of the BT / Plusnet 'official line' that they're putting out.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 113 114 [115] 116 117 ... 140
Jump to:  

Related Sites

Community Apps

Here at Plusnet we're always trying to use clever open source things to make our lives easier. Sometimes we write our own and make other people's lives easier too!

View the Plusnet Open Source applications page

About Plusnet

We're a Yorkshire-based provider selling broadband and phone services to homes and businesses throughout the UK. Winner of the ISPA 2010 'Best Consumer Customer Service ISP' Award, we're proud to offer the UK's best value standalone broadband.

© Plusnet plc All Rights Reserved. E&OE

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC

Add to Technorati Favourites