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

[#1]

does plus.net have the list of ip addresses provided by Gallant Macmillan?
does plus.net know which customers Gallant Macmillan are after and is there a way to find out.... if you are on this list?

[#2]

I just was not sure, seems that other ISP's have recieved, or are persuing payment for private customer details. its good to know that you have not entered into such a thing.
I have been looking at the thread but did not spot anything on this point
Dave

[#3]

Will PLUSNET inform those on the gallant list before monday????

[#4]

Quote from: FOS

I just was not sure, seems that other ISP's have recieved, or are persuing payment for private customer details. its good to know that you have not entered into such a thing. I have been looking at the thread but did not spot anything on this point Dave

Pursuing payment for details is actually a good thing as stated previously in this thread as it deters Law firms from asking for such details.

[#5]

Quote from: Mand

Quote from: FOS Have PN recieved or been offered money for the info on their customers that they have given to ACS Nope. We've never charged for this information in the past, as stated in this thread and elsewhere.

As I understand the situation you did not have to do this and could have challenged the ACS request as other ISP's have done. If no payment was offered what was your motive for complying with such a dodgy request ?
[Moderator's note by Thomas (Be3G): fixed quote tag.]

[#6]

Quote from: foxtrck

Will PLUSNET inform those on the gallant list before monday????

Surely they won't have it yet, and certainly won't have started work translating IP addresses and timestamps into account details. 

[#7]

Quote from: foxtrck

Pursuing payment for details is actually a good thing as stated previously in this thread as it deters Law firms from asking for such details.

I'm not convinced.  There's still several hundred pounds to be split between the law firm and the client, for each case.  If a few percent goes into the pocket of the ISP as well, it's probably still worth them doing it.
Or more likely it'll result in the demand to the hapless user incorporating that expense as well.

[#8]

Quote from: foxtrck

And that makes having my details in the public domain open to identity theft alright?

I never said that now did I? But you have had an apology, That count's for something.

[#9]

I have been reading this sorry affair carefully.  The whole thing stinks.  As far as I can see, Plus are complicit in what I can only describe as an ongoing extortion racket which targets the vulnerable[1].

If PN want to demonstrate they really are committed to deterring exploitation of their customers, this is what I suggest they do.
When complying with court orders and  passing on a persons details, PN contact the individuals.  Warn them that they may be at risk of receiving a speculative invoice and give them the information needed to combat the scammers.  i.e.  That an IP address may not be sufficient evidence to secure prosecution, that they should seek the advice of an expert.  If that is too upfront for the company lawyers, just point those affected at the excellent resources that have been made available,
e.g. http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/new-index.php
Please PN.  
Don't waste our time with weak excuses for your corporate incompetence and the incompetence of the staff within.  It is worth less than the bandwidth it occupies.
Do something proactive, in the interest of your customers particularly and the technology industry in general.  Help break the business model and put these selfish, parasitic lawyers out of business.

[1]The pirates do not pay up.  They already know they do not have to.

[#10]

Plusnet charging ACS:Law and other similar companies will act as a deterrent, because then it becomes an issue of cashflow.
It can be seen from the ACS email database that they were having cashflow problems.  Forcing them to pay up-front before releasing details can be a severe stumbling block.
Also, it stops the rest of the customer base having to subsidise the work carried out on behalf of these companies.  I, for one, totally agree that Plusnet should start charging from hereon out.
B.

[#11]

Quote from: Barry

I, for one, totally agree that Plusnet should start charging from hereon out. B.

Me aswell.

[#12]

I agree, and a going rate of around £250-£300 per IP would probably deter any company snooping for the details and of course the average 'comp claim' is around £500 so there is no real profit to be made.
Simple

I seen the emails of easynet charging £500 an hour for delivering 8 ip addresses.

[#13]

Quote from: Steve

Next you will want a Violin

Steve, I don't think comments like that are very helpful in as emotive a thread as this.

[#14]

Quote from: HPsauce

But what about this assertion? Quote from: fourfourdevon the alleged "Isabella Barwinska" has never been found

Which bit?  The "alleged" bit or the "has never been found" bit?
To the best of my knowledge Isabella Barwinska has never been found by anyone, the court papers were apparently never actually served on her because she was nowhere to be found and none of the press that looked for her could find her either.
So, given the lack of physical evidence that Isabella Barwinska exists, or indeed ever existed, I feel perfectly at liberty to use the word "alleged" in relation to her existence.

[#15]

No probably not Thomas but then I don't like words been put In my mouth, I take the violin bit back though.