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

[#1]

I'm not sure that needed (with ACS:Law) since if MediaCAT have no standing, and they are already limited to only using the data to sue, they will have no right to use the data.
I would imagine the ongoing ICO investigation would be enough to ensure the data gets destroyed, or should be, if its not, then I'm not sure a court order would be either.
However, as BT/Plusnet would have been ordered to hand over data under false pretences, they may want to go back and recover additional costs, or perhaps to gain a ruling of some sort that makes the next NPO seeker have a much more difficult task (if that's possible).

[#2]

Bob, could you review and comment on this post on the Slyk forums which pertains the BT/Plusnet and the NPO's?

[#3]

I would support fourfourdevon's post above and would stress that this should be done with some urgency.

[#4]

Yes i was about to post about the post on SLYCK but you have beaten me to it, I will also say that Plusnet has a duty of care to the 880 persons who they gave personal details of to ACS Law for the Nov 09 NPO, to find out if the DIGIPROTECT Licence that ACS Law used was VALID. If not then surely the information they received is invalid and ACS Law received it illegally.
BT/PLUSNET's legal team must look into it as a matter of urgency.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE MISERY

[#5]

Has Plusnet legals done anything urgently?
They just seem to wait until there is a crisis, just look at the report they should have had ages ago, do they have it?
Also if Plusnet gave out this information to a none licence holder (Legals should have checked) are they not also breaking laws of data protection despite a court order?

[#6]

I very much doubt it, a court order is a court order.  I'm not exactly sure how it stands in law, but remember (or be aware) that courts are called courts because they are the kings (queens) court, and they hand out the kings (queens) judgement.  The word of the court was (and kinda still is) the word of the sovereign power.
I would guess someone could only be prosecuted for obeying a court order, if that court order went against "natural justice", was a "public wrong" or if they were complicit in misleading the court.
Generally speaking, I think the courts would take a dim view of any case that went after someone because they obeyed a court order, since in effect the courts would end up giving grounds for challenging their own powers.
Can you imagine "I didn't take any action to comply with the court order just incase at some point in the future facts emerge that might have made the action illegal"?
Also now I think about it, court orders are in effect a) law themselves b) there to create remedies that don't exist in law.  The more I think about it, the more I just think doing something after a court orders you to, is just about a water tight defence against wrong doing as your ever going to get.

[#7]

Hey guys.
Just showed Fletch this.  He's going to make a call about it with BT and see if we can do anything.

[#8]

I have just read the first 32 pages of this thread upto mid August when Fletch said PlusNet would begin charging for the data requested.
I'm astonised at the apparent lack of action between May and July. It would seem the only reason ACS:laws obtained the court orders was due the communications companies giving permission by not making appropriate enquiries?
From what I read there was no questioning of how the information was collected and if it was trustworthy, the comms companies didn't even seem to be bothered as to how the priviledged data they supplied was used and it wasn't only presistent messaging on this thread that PlusNet took an interest.
From what I have read the companies give the impression they didn't trust their customers.

[#9]

Quote from: christmas

I'm astonised at the apparent lack of action between May and July. It would seem the only reason ACS:laws obtained the court orders was due the communications companies giving permission by not making appropriate enquiries?

Indeed astonishing is the word, and yes, even at that stage a simple refusal to co-operate would have stopped ACS:Law when it came to Plusnet customers, and as things have come to light since, it would appear that ACS:Law and their "clients" actually have no standing in the cases, and so actually had no rights to obtain the information.

Quote from: christmas

From what I read there was no questioning of how the information was collected and if it was trustworthy

This bit, is the most shocking of all, the most qualified people of all failed to apparently even think about the data's validity, despite when viewing the leaked data it is plain as day it has serious integrity issues.  This part is what makes me angry with Plusnet, the rest I can understand even if I don't like it, but failure to point out to the court that the data they were being asked to supply was full of obvious holes and problems is in my view just plain negligence on their part.  I cannot understand that a duty of care was not owed to all concerned, the court was misled by omission, the plaintiff (let assume good faith for a moment) needed to be told about the problems as it great prejudices their case and the above all else Plusnet owed a duty of care to its customers to ensure that it only revealed their identities and exposed them to possible legal action once Plusnet itself was satisfied that when asked for a person vis-a-via an IP at a given time and date, that the data was of sufficiently high quality to justify the exposure.

[#10]

I haven't read the entire thread but have PlusNet said if they sort any evidence from ACS:Law that their customers had been acting illegally before their intial response? Have ACS:Law disclosed who collected the data, how and who 'independently' verified it was correct?
If none of that has been disclosed on what basis did the comms companies decide they would ACS:Law's court actions?
As far back as January 2010 PC Advisor (Which?) wrote about Andrew J Crossley, in response to the article he apparently wrote....

Quote

Which are incorrect to say my firm has sent out 50,000 letters. I notified Which? on 14th January 2010 as follows: "I am not permitted to disclose the number sent out, but I can confirm that it was less than 500".

I guess the comms companies would know if that is correct or not.
In Oct 2010 Metro wrote the following about Mr. Crossley

Quote

He became a solicitor in 1991 and has appeared before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over allegations he did not file accountants’ reports to the Law Society. He told the panel he had been diagnosed with clinical depression before suffering a stroke which he said initially meant he lost his vision ‘completely’, legal papers show.

Apparently hewas unable to attend  this week due to a member of his family being  in an accicident.

[#11]

Quote from: christmas

I haven't read the entire thread but have PlusNet said if they sort any evidence

I suggest:
1. Read the whole thread
2. Research and understand what an NPO is and how it works
Then you'll see why most ISP's did little or nothing to challenge anything initially  

[#12]

Asking someone to read 127 pages of and internet thread seems like a big ask to me.
I don't believe that Plusnet were in a position to know if MediaCat etc were legally entitled to the data, but I would have hoped that Plusnet etc would ask for evidence of that, and for that evidence to be checked out, and if needs be challenged in court, after all if they don't do that simple and obvious thing, I could apply for an NPO based on nothing more than me asking and applying for a court order.

[#13]

Quote from: HPsauce

Quote from: christmas I haven't read the entire thread but have PlusNet said if they sort any evidence I suggest: 1. Read the whole thread 2. Research and understand what an NPO is and how it works Then you'll see why most ISP's did little or nothing to challenge anything initially

I've read the whole thread. I have a good understanding of an NPO. I have no understanding of how Plusnet and the other ISPs felt it was acceptable to fail to contest these orders, the applications for which were based on flawed evidence and laws which do not exist.
Christmas seems to have grasped the gist of the situation extraordinarily well.

[#14]

Quote from: watching

I have no understanding of how Plusnet and the other ISPs felt it was acceptable to fail to contest these orders

You haven't worked in the corporate world then.  
(easy to understand, difficult to justify?)

Quote from: watching

laws which do not exist

How did the court let that one through I wonder?

[#15]

Whilst I agree the evidence was faulty, I not sure that the law doesn't exist.  It has certainly never been tested in court, and as far as I can tell saying that an IP address proves person X is guilty is a leap, and one that the courts may well not want to leap with them, but I do believe law exists.