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

[#1]

Quote

Actually I don't think that is the case.   The list I saw for Plusnet, it was all semi-obscure top40 pop from last year.     My point is, that I know people on some UK ISP's that current have 30-40 films on their bittorrent download list ( I know this, as unsurprisingly, they keep calling me up because they have viruses...), to my knowledge they have never gotten letters.  Some of their dodgy movie downloads are high profile hollywood blockbusters.

FWIW, there's at least one major film production company that sends copyright infringement notices to ISPs. They don't take further action at present, instead they ask for the provider to have a word with the customer in question. If you search Talk Talk's site, you'll actually find reference to this (although they don't pay mention to any of the companies who send the notices).

[#2]

I'm not suggesting ISP's are different in their approach, as they have to oblige to court orders.   I am saying that there are ALOT of people that have been caught downloading ALOT of high profile content and they just don't know it yet. Times are a changing, this ACS is just the beginning....
jim:quote

[#3]

Just joined to add my 10p worth. I note that a number of people who are affected are wanting to contact the ICO directly, you might want to consider contacting Alexander Hanff at Privacy International. He is in direct contact with the right people at the ICO and is working tirelessly on this. He welcomes all who have had thier private details exposed to write to him.
His email is: alex@privacy.org
HTH
Ade

[#4]

One for BT's solicitors Smith v ADVFN Plc
Amd from here

Quote

Smith v ADVFN PLC [2008] EWCA The Court of Appeal considered the proper ambit of a Norwich Pharmacal order and, in particular, the coherency and quantity of the evidence supporting a Norwich Pharmacal order. The court held an applicant should be careful to provide the courts with a coherent body of data from which an allegation of wrong doing could properly be assessed. The case gives valuable guidance not just on the nature, but also on the presentation of the evidence in support of a Norwich Pharmacal application. An indiscriminate and disorganised mass of material could be fatal to the application.

Wow, Im thinking a list of say 4000 IP addresses with dates and times and movie/music track name really is in danger of falling foul of this.

[#5]

Quote from: ClashcityRocker

Quote from: lowbug 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..   Aren't you the one that chose to fileshare illegal content?  Surely that is the source problem.....

If you actually read the above you would realise that I didn't....  

[#6]

Just for the record, my comment had nothing to do with court orders, but like you say all of this could well be, and probably is, the tip of an almighty iceberg that I'm sure we'll all be subject to over the coming years whether we like it or not

[#7]

Quote from: lowbug

Quote from: ClashcityRocker Quote from: lowbug 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..   Aren't you the one that chose to fileshare illegal content?  Surely that is the source problem..... If you actually read the above you would realise that I didn't....

I admit, I have only skimmed the first and last couple of pages of a 89 page thread 🙂

[#8]

UNLESS we do something about It now though Bob? I dunno, Rules, Regulations, Law breaking, Its all just getting way way out of hand.

[#9]

Quote from: ClashcityRocker

Quote from: lowbug Quote from: ClashcityRocker Quote from: lowbug 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..   Aren't you the one that chose to fileshare illegal content?  Surely that is the source problem..... If you actually read the above you would realise that I didn't....   I admit, I have only skimmed the first and last couple of pages of a 89 page thread 🙂

  lol 

[#10]

I got no problem with content creators getting paid, I do however have a huge problem with someone running a business whose main purpose is scare people into paying money that the legal system may well (perhaps almost certainly) would say they didn't owe (Blackpool trading standards recommended that guilty downloaders of music offer to pay £0.75 per track they were accused of downloading as to the best of their legal advice that was the maximum award a court would make per track) by way of threats and bullying, whilst obtaining the "evidence" to justify these threats through means that everyone I know who knows anything about IP networks and/or bittorrent clients says is dubious at best.
Not only that, but the threats are addressed at the bill payers, of a resource which is routinely shared amongst many, and often by people unknown to the bill payer.
Create a law, and a mechanism for making sure the artists etc get paid, no problem, all for it, 100%.  But get charlatans like ACS:Law out of it, he and his way of business are a parasite, at least as bad as any willful file sharer.

[#11]

http://www.removed.co.uk  Check you postcode (and your neighbours..) online against the lists...  
[Moderator's note by Thomas (Be3G): URL removed owing to the possibility of it revealing other customers' personal details.]

[#12]

As a quick moderator's note, can I just ask people please to try to avoid nesting too many quotes (i.e. having a quote inside a quote inside a quote…) where possible. There's nothing rule-breaking about it, so no we won't be telling anyone off for doing it, but avoiding them when they're not necessary makes things a bit easier to read and stops the thread from looking longer than it already is. Thanks.

[#13]

Quote from: lowbug

http://www.removed.co.uk  Check you postcode (and your neighbours..) online against the lists...

Now that is just the sort of thing we DONT want setting up on the internet. The only use is prurient interest, and invasion of privacy.
[Moderator's note by Thomas (Be3G): quote edited to reflect the removed URL.]

[#14]

Just found this thread...
We've not done any file sharing (gave up on that years ago after joining PN and finding the throttles in place) but I've been reading that a lot of people have had threats from ACS even though they've done nothing wrong (supposedly). I've not shared a file for years (so in some ways PN saved me from myself) but these days your innocent until proven guilty especially where blood sucking lawyers and solicitors are concerned.
I'm obviously concerned about this as I certainly don't want threats for doing nothing wrong. How do we find out if our details were supplied? - This topic is now 80-something pages long so I'm not going to spend all night trawling through it.
I was shocked when I saw plusnets logo on the bbc news website where they clearly state PN are heavily involved in this scandal. We shall now be seriously considering leaving this ISP. If its not technical glitches, long CS call queues, mail box errors etc then you just allow confidential information to be leaked all over the place. Sorry guys but in these times of ID fraud thats not impressive.

[#15]

Quote from: et0

I'm curious about the reliability of the information provided. On a technical level, I can't see how logs of IP address allocations to a particular phone number / customer would not be 100% accurate.

They are not.  Errors can creep in - one would be human error in tallying addresses for email (e.g. during cut and paste), wrong IP addresses given by ACS Law (i.e. out by a number or two - many sharers I believe where in the same area, a machine on route IP address - e.g. a gateway to student hall, human error reading a traceroute - or whatever it is - correctly), technical issues like daylight savings throwing out IP/time correlation on databases meaning wrong phone numbers - thus home addresses - given, network faults, faulty logging at Plusnet and probably things I've not thought of but still obviously enough to get a court order granted.

Quote from: et0

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people claiming "I really didn't do this".  Are they all be lying?  It seems unlikely.

Not really. As well as the above possible errors, most people can't keep their machines up to date and virus free and think the internet email and web browsing are all the same thing. It is quite possible that their network was unsecure* (any neighbour could hop on and borrow wifi), but more than likely they have teenage sons who profess innocence, so the parents can genuinely say they themselves didn't do it.
*Incidentally if I remember correctly the Thomson wireless router which Plusnet had been giving out used to have an admin access SECURITY FLAW (default password - I can't remember?) which could allow someone to "hack" a wifi network. Plusnet fixed this a few months ago. I'd say this last point is very good grounds for "proving" innocence in that the whole thing was insecure, potentially Plusnet/Thompson's fault (and other ISPs that gave out that router such as Be - part of O2 whose details weren't leaked) leaving people liable, and that somebody else downloaded using that IP address.
Whilst I'm no expert on these matters, law or networks, I'd hardly call this a water tight case for most people.