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

[#1]

Quote from: jelv

(On the other hand some of the information I've seen elsewhere points to a fairly cosy relationship between BT and ACS with BT assisting ACS in the drafting of the NPO, so perhaps it is perfectly understandable)

It is normal for solicitors to work together on none contested orders (as these were) it saves both sides time and money, and the changes that they "worked on together" were changes BT wanted after we here asked Plusnet to monitor what was actually happening, and the Order needed to be redrafted to take that into account, given the change was at BT's request, its hardly a surpise that BT helped draft it.

[#2]

Quote from: Barry

jelv - that Ars article is the most comprehensive and well written report on the entire situation.. Thanks for posting that gem

Yes, a very good piece, thanks jelv.

[#3]

Quote from: Mand

The issue of contesting the request for these orders has been discussed at length in this thread, but ultimately when a court order is granted we can't decline to cooperate.

All the more reason to contest them before they're granted! I trust Plusnet are planning on contesting the court order on October 4th? Can we get a confirmation on that?

[#4]

Fletch said in his post we'd be resisting any future requests for information.
We haven't yet provided any information in relation to the Gallant Macmillan order as it hasn't been granted yet.

[#5]

Quote from: Mand

Fletch said in his post we'd be resisting any future requests for information. We haven't yet provided any information in relation to the Gallant Macmillan order as it hasn't been granted yet.

Erm Mand, thats the most disingenuous Ive seen from Plusnet yet on this matter.
The Gallant Macmillan request has already been made, so in reference to Gallant Macmillan request resisting further requests is irrelevant.
The Gallant Macmillan order hasn't been granted, you are correct, but it probably will be unless you contest it, so you will probably be handing over more information, uncontested.
Theres a lot of double speak going off here.
So a simple question, which you should answer in plain English are you going to be at the 4th October hearing?  And if you are, are you going to at least attempt to contest the order?
Yes and Yes will suffice, but if you need to put a "No" in there, I suggest you offer some explanation.

[#6]

Quote from: Mand

Fletch said in his post we'd be resisting any future requests for information. We haven't yet provided any information in relation to the Gallant Macmillan order as it hasn't been granted yet.

Does 'resisting' mean 'contesting' or does it mean 'sitting idly by until our customers details are ordered to be given away again by us to lawyers keen to extract money on the basis of flimsy evidence'?
It goes without saying that it hasn't been granted yet. Your customers don't want it granted. You customers want you to force the evidence to be examined in a court of law. Once it's been granted - TOO LATE!
I'll ask again. Are Plusnet going to contest the application for a court order on 4th October (the same application that they previously failed even to show up at, despite assuring customers that they'd have someone there).
Oh, and don't send the work experience boy again.

[#7]

Fletch has said we will be resisting future requests. I don't know how that can be seen as ambiguous TBH.
Resisting means challenging.

[#8]

Wow, just posted over on Slyck http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9229/eus_top_court_isps_dont_have_to_name_filesharers/
EU courts says EU rules don't require ISP ever hand over data for civil cases, only criminal cases.
It would seem that the EU also don't say ISP should not hand over data in civil cases, but then no one I think has ever asked the EU courts that question.
Either way, there was an ISP that really went into to bat on this matter.

[#9]

Quote from: Mand

Fletch has said we will be resisting future requests. I don't know how that can be seen as ambiguous TBH. Resisting means challenging.

The hearing on the 4th October is NOT ABOUT A FUTURE REQUEST, its about a PAST REQUEST.

[#10]

I can see why some illegal filesharers are afraid, as the Plusnet offenses are almost 12 months old (apparently), and this the movie studios/record companies have collected 12months worth of data of offenders.
Even if ACS LAW are out of the picture, it's still highly likely if you have broken copyright law, it's only a matter of time before it catches up with you, as clearly just because you have never received a letter about that dodgy movie you downloaded 6 months ago, does not say you won't receive one in the future.
I suspect the majority of this story is yet to come, there is plenty more surprises instore.

[#11]

Quote from: watching

I'll ask again. Are Plusnet going to contest the application for a court order on 4th October (the same application that they previously failed even to show up at, despite assuring customers that they'd have someone there).

?

[#12]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

EU courts says EU rules don't require ISP ever hand over data for civil cases, only criminal cases.

Not exactly, it's more of a double-negative:
"Community law does not require the member states, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings"
So, UK law will do whatever it wants, basically.

[#13]

There's no need to shout.
The honest answer is I don't know who will be attending on Monday, and I won't be able to tell you until tomorrow, as it's after 10pm and I'm at home.

[#14]

Getting back to it, what protection will I be afforded? Will plusnet change my static IP? Will they compansate me to change 400+ sites to allow me remote access again? Who is paying me for this mistake. The data should have never of left at all let alone unencypted. I could lose my job, my house - plusnet / BT answer it again...  Who is sorting this out for me?
It's not even correct data, I wasn't even at home! The other day my computer was miles away at work!! I've said it before both ACS and Plus need to be sued...
The offer of poxy software is a joke..  

[#15]

Quote from: HPsauce

Not exactly, it's more of a double-negative: "Community law does not require the member states, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings" So, UK law will do whatever it wants, basically.

yeah, that was part of what I was trying to say, but you said it clearly.