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

[#1]

Hi guys,
Firstly, we don't just 'give away' any details. We have an obligation to provide information when a court order stipulates this.
Secondly, our senior management team have spoken to the legal team required. They have advised that some (but not all) orders do have a disclosure requirement, detailing that a written report should be provided to us within 6 months of our disclosure (for the applicable ACS law orders this 6 months is up at the end of June). Our legal team are chasing this to ensure it will be provided to us.
Once received we'll address the options available to us.

[#2]

Thanks Mand, appreciated 

[#3]

Quote from: Mand

Secondly, our senior management team have spoken to the legal team required. They have advised that some (but not all) orders do have a disclosure requirement, detailing that a written report should be provided to us within 6 months of our disclosure (for the applicable ACS law orders this 6 months is up at the end of June). Our legal team are chasing this to ensure it will be provided to us. Once received we'll address the options available to us.

Thanks Mand - hope it allows you to sue them.

[#4]

cheers for the update

Quote

Our legal team are chasing this to ensure it will be provided to us. Once received we'll address the options available to us.

Wonder what the options will end up being 

[#5]

Quote

They have advised that some (but not all) orders do have a disclosure requirement, detailing that a written report should be provided to us within 6 months of our disclosure (for the applicable ACS law orders this 6 months is up at the end of June). Our legal team are chasing this to ensure it will be provided to us. Once received we'll address the options available to us.

I look forward to your reply......please note i will not be going away and have a great interest in this point of priciple regarding protection of my Personal Details

[#6]

Can I ask what personal details you are trying to protect? Believe PN will only pass over your name and address.
As for me they would not need a court order to find me , Static IP address, rDNS and domain registration and they have found me without going to PN 

[#7]

The Information i am trying to protect.....? Well that would be my Name, Address and telephone number. the reason i am trying to protect it...? well that would be the fact that i dont believe that the NPO (Court order) that PN receive is valid in law, as the definition of a NPO (Court Order) states that "The person seeking the court order must have a genuine intention of commencing proceedings."http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/556.cfm and as i have stated earlier NO ONE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO COURT. PlusNet may be interested to see how the information is being used by ACS Law http://torrentfreak.com/law-firm-asks-alleged-file-sharers-to-incriminate-themselves-100526/ and http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/05/acs-law-uses-questionnaire-to-chase-pirates-215346
I urge PlusNet to take a stand and not release any one else's details until they receive notice of how many customers have actually been taken to court by ACS Law....I guarentee it will be ZERO. PlusNet law team should be drafting their letter to ACS Law requesting these details soon!

[#8]

If you are hoping for PN to make a stand against the Court Orders used to release your data then don’t hold your breath!
I was accused of sharing a file back in 2008 and have fought long and hard to prove my innocence, having never used any torrent software let alone downloaded some rubbish German techno music! I was infuriated when I discovered in more detail how flawed the data collecting evidence is and how my data was released without me being able to contest it. How PN can’t be bothered to help it’s customers, but instead chose the ‘easy option’ and just released our data when requested.
All PN have to do is say “No” when the solicitors originally request our data (before the court order is applied for) and this is enough to put the solicitor off. He doesn’t want a court room fight, he doesn’t want his “evidence” investigated, he just wants easy money. Talk Talk say NO to the original request and tell the solicitor that they will contest the court order and the solicitor drops them off the list.
Easy see?
Why won’t PN do it? Well I asked this very question. Firstly I wrote through the ticket system but I kept getting the same standard template response
“We were fully obliged to provide this information ….” .
So I followed the procedure suggested on PN’s terms and escalated it to the Director of Customer Services, I took the time to explain exactly what had happened to me and how it had affected my life. Sadly he didn’t write a letter back to me, great service eh! A CSC Analyst telephoned me to let me know that they would have to speak to the legal team, then I got the standard template response (for the third time!) so I had to speak to them on the phone again. I had to practically spell it out to them, but eventually got it through to them that I wanted to know “Why do PN NOT contest the court order” .They called me back and told me on the telephone that “PN would not contest the court orders like Talk Talk do because they are worried there would be repercussions for them.”I asked for this in writing knowing full well it probably would happen as it wouldn’t make them look good. Here is the response
“As discussed with yourself this evening, I can only confirm that the company policy on this matter is when such requests are received is that we have to comply with the requests. At the moment there are no plans to change this in the future.”
No surprises there. Yes they have to comply with a court order request but they CAN SAY NO before it gets that far AND they can contest the order!
So basically PN are not willing to do the same as Talk Talk because it’s too risky for them and if that means a small minority of their customers get sent nasty grams that incorrectly accuse them of file sharing then so be it. They don’t care.

PN are fully aware that an IP address does not identify a person and have been since the scheme started over two years ago. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is a revenue generating process that abuses a legal loophole to bully people into paying disproportionate amounts of money regardless of their guilt/innocence. PN have done nothing about it so far and I can’t see this stance changing at all, but I sincerely hope I am proved wrong one day.

[#9]

Hi there,
I'm sorry to hear that issues such as this have affected you already.
As I've said in this thread we are looking at our options regarding the court orders, and discussing this with our legal team.
As soon as I have an update I'll report it here.

[#10]

I'd be interested to know what concrete help Plusnet offered "Tidgy" in his legal battle caused by Plusnet's incompetence...
Indeed I'd be interested in the eventual outcome.

[#11]

Just jumping in here it seems an issue has actually being missed by both sides;
If PN recieves a valid court order for a users details, the correct thing PN should do is first inform the user whose details are being requested.
They should provdie to the user a copy of the court order, the date it was recieved, by what court it was issued by & on whose behalf it was issued.
They should then allow the user in question the time to challenge the issuing of the court order before complying with it.
If the user does not inform PN they are taking challenging action or ignores PNs communication then & only then should PN comply with the court order.
Contary to popular belief a court order does not need to be immediately complied with, you are allowed a reasonable amount of time to challenge it.
It is incumbent on PN to carry out this procedure, failure to do so leaves PN in a very iffy legal grey zone.
At least thats what I recall about the whole thing, did know it quite well several years ago but theres a fair chance its all changed now since NuLiebour borked up every law in the country & allowed corporations carte blanche to do what they like.
EDIT: Of course if PN havent recieved a valid court order and are mearly providing your details upon the verbal or written request of a lawyer without an accompanying valid court order then PN are breaking the law and leaving tehmselves (not BT) open to prosecution & btw its a criminal offence to do that not a civil case & so could have servere consequneces for PN if they act before recieving a valid court order.  For reference valid court orders are hardcopy only, an email or verbal copy does not count, in fact if I recall correctly it must be the original document or an authorised copy only which is valid, anything else should not be considered a court order.
Again this is all as I recall & does not constitute legal advice.  If you need legal advice regarding these issue please contact a lawyer!  Feel free to use this post as a stepping off point for your own further research but do not rely on it for your liberty or financial security.

[#12]

Quote from: KitFox

If PN recieves a valid court order for a users details, the correct thing PN should do is first inform the user whose details are being requested.

PN are not obliged to do this under the Data Protectio Act (DPA).
I quote a response i recieved on the matter when i wrote to the Infomation Commissioners Office to enquire about it:
The DPA First Principle explained
"The first principle of the DPA requires that personal data is processed ‘fairly’. Generally speaking this means that an organisation should advise individuals when they collect their information how they intend to use that information. If an organisation wanted at a later date to do something with an individual’s information that they had not been told about, and would not expect, they would usually need to let the individual know and in some cases seek their consent."
The Excemption
"Section 35 of the DPA provides an exemption from the requirements of certain parts of the DPA, including the requirements of the first principle as described above (to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the disclosure in question) where a disclosure of personal data is required by the order of a court. In other words, a data controller does not have to comply with the requirements of the first principle where they are making a disclosure in response to a court order and to comply with the relevant part of the DPA would be inconsistent with that disclosure. In this situation a data controller would not therefore need to seek consent for the disclosure, but would need to determine whether telling individuals would be inconsistent with the purposes of the disclosure itself, before deciding whether the exemption would also mean that they should not tell people they intend to make a disclosure of this nature."
It's really a mute point to be honest anyway. The court order should never go ahead with a list of thousands of IP's on it. PN should refuse to co operate with these mass data farming requests BEFORE it gets that far.

[#13]

Quote from: Tidgy

The court order should never go ahead with a list of thousands of IP's on it. PN should refuse to co operate with these mass data farming requests BEFORE it gets that far.

Certainly, if the list is just that of contiguous IP addresses in the .plus.com domain, then there is reasonable doubt they are up to no good.

[#14]

If PN were to reply to the notification of an application for a court order with a form letter that they intended to file a defence, then these con merchants would move on to where the pickings are easier and cheaper.

[#15]

I think it says it all that after 4 years of ACS and the other law firms sending letters not a SINGLE CASE has gone to court because without any doubt it wouldnt stand up even if the person HAD downloaded something, yet they're happy to use a court order to obtain these details and scare people.