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

[#1]

I guess they will from now on; if they don't we'll all be expecting answers here from "Fletch".  

[#2]

TBH I expected a bit more fight from PlusNet over handing over the IP details to the lawyers. Did they expect us not to find out? It doesn't help broker much in the way of trust. I find it interesting to read that TalkTalk dodged the bullet and - from what I've read - VirginMedia wouldn't hand the details over either.

[#3]

Quote from: avatastic

I'd like to know if there is any legal position that would allow PN (or any other company for that matter) to refuse to provide the details when presented with a NPO unless a request was granted by a higher power.

How much higher than the high court do you want?

[#4]

We've had answers from "Fletch", I thought all we'd had were dismissals and vague reassurances?

[#5]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

How much higher than the high court do you want?

I'd like a court that'd not let me go through my server logs picking out IP addresses, querying RIPE for the ISPs that own then and submitting a claim that they did something bad.
Otherwise I'd be submitting the IP addresses of the UK hosts who ping my ssh server for a NPO, requesting the information from the ISPs and paying them a visit to ... virus scan their machines ...

[#6]

Over the last few days I've seen enough information about how the IPs are gathered in the first place to know that it is deeply flawed. If Plusnet had challenged the way in which the list was derived BEFORE the court hearing which granted the NPO, there would have been one of three outcomes:
1. ACS Law would have removed Plusnet from the respondents to the NPO before it got to court. This is the most likely outcome (it is what happened in TalkTalks case). Winning outcome for Plusnet
2. The judge on hearing the arguments would have refused to grant the NPO. In the extracts if seen from the leaked emails it seems that ACS Law knew they had a weak case so it should be easy for someone with a sound knowledge of how P2P works and good technical knowledge to win the argument (we've seen the evidence ourselves how technically competent ACS Law are!). Winning outcome for Plusnet
3. The judge hears the arguments and still grants the order. Plusnet can with a clear conscience say they did their best but they have to obey the NPO.  Winning outcome for Plusnet (but possibly not for the users)
So the ONLY way Plusnet can achieve a losing outcome is to fail to contest the NPO before it is made. This point has been made time and time again to Plusnet in this thread and the best we have had is "it's on our radar". A week ago Monday (20 Sept)  there was a hearing for another NPO (not from ACS Law). In spite of all of the pushing by users in this topic guess what Plusnet did, they indicated in advance that they would not be contesting the order and didn't bother to show up.
Now, with the leak of the emails it's all blown up in your face. Well quite frankly you deserve all that's happened to you and 10 times over. I suppose with Plusnet's supreme ability demonstrated over a number of years to score own goals we should not have been surprised that yet again it all ended in tears.
We've seen that users are leaving Plusnet to join TalkTalk because they perceive that Talktalk look after their users better. That has just got to be the ultimate ignomy!

[#7]

I wonder where Plusnet will come in the next "customer satisfaction" awards beano? 

[#8]

Quote from: jelv

We've seen that users are leaving Plusnet to join TalkTalk because they perceive that Talktalk look after their users better. That has just got to be the ultimate ignomy!

The ultimate irony too!

[#9]

hindsight Is amazing though Isn't It? What matters now and In the future Is what matters, Oh and the outcome of this thread will make many minds up let me tell you, I know a lot of Important eyes are watching this thread.

[#10]

Including mine. 
When FTTC comes to town I have to choose a supplier who doesn't overcharge and doesn't distribute my address to the spammers.

[#11]

On the other hand - I wish it was an ISP *other* than talk talk which was doing the decent thing.
If it was BE for example - or any of the other few ISP's I have looked at recently - I would already have my Mac address.
MODIFIED TO ADD: - however, a failure to contest on 4th October may well push me over the edge - even into the arms of Talk Talk.

[#12]

I have been a plus net customer for around 4 years and have just requested a mac code,although this thread doesn't involve me.
Plus net have not answered any question in this thread. 
Indeed their standard get out is "The courts forced us" but as we now know this isn't the case as talk talk and others have shown.
Can anyone point to where they say
we will not supply info to acs law anymore
we will now contest all requests from above law firm?
we will inform customers if we are forced to divulge information?
I will decided as to whether i activate this code in the following month based on if the above questions get a satisfactory answer,or im off to someone else.

[#13]

I think the answers to your questions (and those of several others) depends on what your motivations are behind the questions:
If the real gist if your question is that you are looking for an ISP who will let you download films and music without the risk of being taken to court, then the answer to that question is there isn't one. Plusnet like all ISPs will have to hand over details if forced to do so by a court... even TalkTalk would have to if ever presented with a Court order. So if you therefore want answers to your questions to reassure you that you can download what you like without any fear, then that ISP doesn't exist.
OK, ACS:Law have been exposed to be money grabbing, and their methods & evidence shown to be flimsy & shaky, so TalkTalk can be applauded for calling their bluff on this occasion, but if a serious solicitor ever comes along and takes up TalkTalks challenge with better evidence, there is no guarantee that TalkTalk would win and TalkTalk would then hand over the data like every other ISP.
However, if you are not a file-sharer, then the answers might be more reassuring for you at most ISPs.
1) No-one can promise not to supply info to ACS:law, as a court order is a court order! They can hold out until ACS prove themselves to be competent again, but there is a limit, if ACS ever got their ship in order, and even TalkTalk would have to comply if presented with a court order. TalkTalk say they want to see the evidence beefed up and proven in court before they will give in, which is admirable, but they might well get that test case... and then have to hand details to ACS in the future.
2) No ISP will contest an order if the evidence looks to be sound (it would be a foolish waste of money say if contested NPOs were being handed out at some point in the future, and so TalkTalk were getting them too, then TalkTalk would stop contesting and would start handing out customer details). So no ISP can promise to AWLAYS contest. TalkTalk have said they will oppose until a court case examines the evidence and makes an assessment of it. If such a court case opened the doors, then TalkTalk might have to stop contesting orders. It appears the evidence is flaky now though, and hopefully all ISPs will contest future NPOs until the evidence quality improves, but they can't say for ever... and will be cagey about giving that assurance, in case they have to backtrack on it in the future. TalkTalks stance has only worked as there were easier targets for tight-fisted money grabbers. In the future if all ISPs contest then the solicitors might have to take one to court to open the flood-gates again.
3) Informing customers I think was possibly a problem with NPO. There was possibly some clause blocking contact, or at least making BT lawyers suggest it wasn't a good idea.
So my main point is that no ISP can give you a cast iron guarantee. However, even allowing for the legalese that BT paint onto everything, there is room for clarification and strengthening of the position that Plusnet will take in the future, but don't expect them to say never!
Mike
p.s. apologies, I'm tired, so not talking as much sense as I might have done....

[#14]

As I stated 1 week ago, and previously 6 months ago, I do not, and have never used P2P. However, as I also pointed out 6 months ago, the evidence being used to accuse is flimsy at best.
What I *am* looking for is an ISP who at least *cares enough* about their customers not to throw them to the lawers of pornographers without at least a challenge to that evidence (which they *know* for themselves is flimsy) in a court of law. If plusnet had decided to do this - when I - and others - were urging them to do so in the strongest terms 6 MONTHS AGO, we wouldn't be where we are now. Remember - it is not just file sharers who are now in the clutches of these people, and have their contact details splashed all over the internet**. It could have been any of us in this thread - or indeed ANY of plusnets customers.
Sadly from the evidence to date, and recent responses in this thread, it seems plusnet is not that ISP.

**read here about "single mother of two". File sharing (possibly) took place - but should *her* name be in the hands of ACS Law? How many of plusnets customers are now in a similar situation, paying for something they did not do, and having to cope with the stress and fear of the whole process? This is peoples *lives* we are talking about - not contacts in some database!
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-gay-porn-letters-target-pensioners-married-men-100925/

[#15]

Well it is Plusnet's fault that all my details are now splashed about the internet, and I know many people that are actually in the list may not have the insight to investigate this further or maybe even don't understand they are in a list that has been circulating over the internet. I have had enough of this incompetent ISP and as soon as I have had my support questions answered I will be requesting my mac code. Who knows what other cowboy law firms have been requesting information through NPO's that PN have given out on a whim, I prefer PAYING MONEY to a service that has my interests FIRST and doesn't roll over, if other ISP's like TalkTalk can behave in this way why did PN not????
The thing I don't get though is why were the details in the hands of BT LEGAL TEAM? It seems as if BT were actually acting for Plusnet in contact with ACS:Law, some people are blaming PN of sending the details to ACS:law, but it was actually PRAKASH MISTRY of BT Legal team who sent the unencrypted spreadsheet to ACS.
I have tried making a complaint to BT, but they say it's PN I should take the breach of DPA up with even though I know it is BT who clearly breach the DPA, there is no evidence as of yet whether PN failed to adhere to the DPA.