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

[#1]

Quote from: foxtrck

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.

It just means the claims will go up to a grand!
The cashflow point is a good one though.
What's the "payout rate" on these letters anyway?   Surely it must be pretty high, especially the porn-y ones.

[#2]

Quote from: mssystems

"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 am not so sure that PN can do this. I understand that the requested NPO states that the person identified cannot be informed by the ISP. I might be wrong though.
Ade.

[#3]

Quote from: et0

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.

Your maths is a bit simplistic.  The ISP charges per IP address processed.  Only a small fraction of the harvested IPs end up generating a revenue.  By charging for the chaff as well as the unknown quantity of wheat, ISPs have the opportunity to put a serious dent in the cash flow.
If you have a look at what has leaked from ACS, you can see that £1 per IP, was enough to slow down the operation to the point it was causing the perpetrator some stress.
Charge em.  Charge the pants off em.

[#4]

Quote from: bartstope

does plus.net have the list of ip addresses provided by Gallant Macmillan?

Not yet, but if the court orders it, they will have to.

[#5]

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

It was discussed here http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,85908.msg744318.html#msg744318

[#6]

Quote from: FOS

If no payment was offered what was your motive for complying with such a dodgy request ?

Dodgy or not, once a court order is made Plusnet have to give the details.

[#7]

I thought TalkTalk and Virgin had refused to comply with these court orders to protect their customers ?
tom:quote

[#8]

Quote from: Aider

I am not so sure that PN can do this. I understand that the requested NPO states that the person identified cannot be informed by the ISP. I might be wrong though.

Fair point, possibly.  
So when they have complied with an NPO, mail everyone with some information about speculative invoicing and how to defend against it.  I realise there is a spam issue here, but 1.  It doesn't seem to stop them sending me e-mails about offers.  2. They would not be selling anything, so maybe it isn't spam.
I guess my point is that if PN have the will to inform customers of their rights, they will find the way to inform....etc.

[#9]

Quote from: mssystems

Your maths is a bit simplistic.  The ISP charges per IP address processed.  Only a small fraction of the harvested IPs end up generating a revenue.

Do you know it's a small fraction?  I do not.

Quote

By charging for the chaff as well as the unknown quantity of wheat, ISPs have the opportunity to put a serious dent in the cash flow. If you have a look at what has leaked from ACS, you can see that £1 per IP, was enough to slow down the operation to the point it was causing the perpetrator some stress.

It may have caused one particular Lionel Hutz type outfit some stress, that doesn't mean to say it's the magic bullet for reducing this problem.
I would still feel uncomfortable with having my details "sold" in this way.  

[#10]

Quote from: mssystems

Quote from: Aider I am not so sure that PN can do this. I understand that the requested NPO states that the person identified cannot be informed by the ISP. I might be wrong though. Fair point, possibly.   So when they have complied with an NPO, mail everyone with some information about speculative invoicing and how to defend against it.  I realise there is a spam issue here, but 1.  It doesn't seem to stop them sending me e-mails about offers.  2. They would not be selling anything, so maybe it isn't spam. I guess my point is that if PN have the will to inform customers of their rights, they will find the way to inform....etc.

I agree. I would guess that once they have complied then that is that. I wonder what the time period is that they cannot notify the individual. Once they have a letter then everything is levelled. I'm not a legal person though, so don't the specifics (just what i am reading from a few informed people on other forums).
Doesn't stop a blanket email, as you suggested, though. After all, I am sure PN are a caring organisation that likes to look after it's customers.
Ade

[#11]

Quote from: et0

I would still feel uncomfortable with having my details "sold" in this way.

Your details aren't being sold. Plusnet would be recovering the costs of processing these claims. The costs for processing these claims at present are bourne by all customers of Plusnet. Is that fair either?

[#12]

I found this Please see screenshot, And wonder why this situation has happened, The document In screenshot was taken august this year.

[#13]

Quote from: FOS

I thought TalkTalk and Virgin had refused to comply with these court orders to protect their customers ?

They said they would object in court to the orders, the solicitors concerned never invited them to court so no orders were made against them, except Virgin who had originally not said that it would object.
However, object or don't object, if a court order is made you have to hand over the details.

[#14]

Quote from: andun84

Your details aren't being sold. Plusnet would be recovering the costs of processing these claims. The costs for processing these claims at present are bourne by all customers of Plusnet. Is that fair either?

That's why I put "sold" in inverted commas.  As in "sold out".  But it's effectively the same thing if a profit is made from it.  There would then be a disincentive to challenge any claim as it would be directly reducing profit.
The actual cost to the ISP is hardly significant - retrieving a list from a database and then emailling it (insecurely ;)) surely doesn't occupy more than a man-day or so of time, I'm not losing any sleep over that.

[#15]

Quote from: Steve

I found this Please see screenshot, And wonder why this situation has happened, The document In screenshot was taken august this year.

The DEA is not active yet, and may never be active Talk Talk amongst others are seeking leave for judicial review of the law, that *could* end up with the law being struck down.  I stress could, I think the chances are low.