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

Quote from: Fletch

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.

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.

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 

Doesn't mention whether Be were there or not

Im suspecting that means they were there, but said little or nothing of interest.

Quote from: collinet

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

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.

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.

It doesn't matter.
What matters is it was good enough to get the result (without over egging it - don't want to give any more ammo to the enemy, in terms of future plans, than necessary), and buys the time to get the next step right.

I suspect the court papers will show more detail - however that specific point may have been the reason the extension was granted, it does give Plusnet 3 months to pull their finger out and prepare for the new hearing properly, addressing all concerns.
B.

Quote from: watching

This doesn't quite align with gist of the BT / Plusnet 'official line' that they're putting out.

Indeed, but that doesn't for sure mean it wasn't mentioned, and even it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that it won't be part of what they bring to court on the 11th January.

[quote=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/intellectual-property-data-protection]The Information Commissioner is investigating the data breach which led to the public exposure of thousands of customers' private information. If it is determined that the exposure was the result of ACS:Law's own data security shortcomings, rather than the fault of external hackers, the Information Commissioner could levy a £500,000 fine on the law firm.
That should be easy to prove as the site wasn't hacked!

Quote from: fourfourdevon

...even it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean that it won't be part of what they bring to court on the 11th January.

Only one way to find out! On Jan 11th all will become clear. Woe betide should they let us down!