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

[#1]

@foxtrck - I can guess how you feel.  If my details were on a public list I would be devastated.
This will now be going through a formal process and I doubt there will be any quick answers.  I would suggest that anyone who has had details leaked put their complaint in writing to Plusnet and the ICO.  You may also want to write to your MP as well. 

[#2]

Quote from: xpcomputers

I think the answers to your questions (and those of several others) depends on what your motivations are behind the questions:

My motivation, as I'm not a filesharer, is a natural anger at bullies and those who collude with them,
I'm not IT technical but reading through here it seems feasible that some of the names and addresses supplied had NOT 'illegally' downloaded, is that correct?
Therefore surely there should be a presumption of innocence. My response to ACS law, had I received a letter of attempted extortion, would be - I'll see you in court.
It is my opinion that presumption of innocence is being eroded in this country.

[#3]

Have a look at this video:
Great interview with international © expert James Boyle:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Fboyleinterview&h=29493

[#4]

While I'm not actually involved in this farce, my confidence in PlusNet has been somewhat shaken. Been with them for 17 months, and the service has been good enough, but seeing their name splashed over the headlines in something like this is unnerving.

[#5]

Quote

Therefore surely there should be a presumption of innocence. My response to ACS law, had I received a letter of attempted extortion, would be - I'll see you in court.

This is exactly what the majority of people who were targetted by ACS Law said, which is why he moved on to easier targets, and why there have been ZERO court cases.

[#6]

Quote from: Toolbox

If you read this thread from page one you will see that is what they have been doing al through it.

I have followed all the threads on this and the guy's name is still on threads and there was no one saying that he shouldn't be doing this. So I stand over what I said.

[#7]

Quote from: davethir

Quote Therefore surely there should be a presumption of innocence. My response to ACS law, had I received a letter of attempted extortion, would be - I'll see you in court. This is exactly what the majority of people who were targetted by ACS Law said, which is why he moved on to easier targets, and why there have been ZERO court cases.

Look at this BBC News page   http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11430299
One question asked is HOW CAN YOU PROVE YOU DIDN'T DO IT?  Not how can they prove you did it?
It's my understanding that these are civil rather than criminal matters and that the level of proof required is lower (again - my understanding - not a lawyer) but all the same.
I've recently left PN for an LLU supplier but if I was still with them I would be considering my position.

[#8]

Quote from: Toolbox

Do you think he still works for BT?

I do hop so, unless he has been grossly incompetent in an area where he claims he was competent, or he has made repeated mistakes for which he has been warned, then I see no valid reason for sacking him.  Although given he's a solicitor working for BT and made a rather junior error I would expect him to be reprimanded.

[#9]

Yes but read that article, it is in a sad way rather funny:
"The film was called Chubby Chasers, which is just awful, and the letter [said] I owed them £495 or they would be taking me to court in a civil law case."
"The time that I was accused of downloading the film I was in bed. It was very early morning - on a Tuesday.
"My alarm wouldn't have even gone off yet.
"My partner had been made redundant and I know damn well that he was in bed and hadn't got up and started download pornography."

[#10]

Quote from: jelv

I suspect that the link to the post with the phone numbers will disappear very quickly. But that email reveals something I found quite shocking. It is an ACS Law internal memo. jim:green quote removed as it has now been removed from the original post mod:end BT/Plusnet did not just agree to the order - they actively participated in the drafting of the order!

cant be bothered to trawl back through the thread to the last npo order that was published for gallant macmillin but am sure am right in thinking that clauses got added that said bt pn and sky didn't have to get the report.
does this mean that BT/PN asked acs:law and the other firms to start leaving them out of receiving the report? when i first saw it on this thread i was in to minds to as if acs:law and the other boys found a loop hole to stop giving the reports out but that email deafo seems to be BT's request now

[#11]

Quote from: foxtrck

Because I'm not getting any answers from Plusnet

I have just replied to your support ticket.

[#12]

Quote from: Asbo

cant be bothered to trawl back through the thread to the last npo order that was published for gallant macmillin but am sure am right in thinking that clauses got added that said bt pn and sky didn't have to get the report. does this mean that BT/PN asked acs:law and the other firms to start leaving them out of receiving the report?

The quote preceding this statement suggests the complete opposite to me, although yes - I think there was a Plunset targeted NPO doing the rounds at some point that seemed to be void of this particular clause.

[#13]

Quote

The quote preceding this statement suggests the complete opposite to me, although yes - I think there was a Plunset targeted NPO doing the rounds at some point that seemed to be void of this particular clause.

Bob that is not a good thing, it shows that BT (Plusnet) didnot want to receive a report, because as you know that is what this thread was started for in the first place. If you dont get the report, then we cannot ask you for it!!

[#14]

Quote from: Bob

Quote from: foxtrck Because I'm not getting any answers from Plusnet I have just replied to your support ticket.

With nonchalant vagueness....

[#15]

can we have honest answer from the pn/ bt camp as to why you asked for these clauses to be added?
what game was you playing, was this to benefit the talks you was in with acs:law before the leaked emails or did you roll over and get your belly scratched by acs:law
pink floyd track am sure you all know which it will be