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

[#1]

I'll reiterate what I said before:
@PLUS.NET, how about making a blog post for all your customers, or maybe circulating an email round to every customer (not just those affected), perhaps issuing an apology for the unencrypted data, as well as action you will take to stop such a stupid thing happening again, and maybe even explaining the situation...

[#2]

Quote from: jelv

Sorry I should have linked to the ICO website for full information on how to complain http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/data_protection.aspx Anyone who's name was on one of the published lists MUST make a formal complaint. The ICO may be fully aware that a transgression has occurred, but unless they get a formal complaint from someone affected they may not take action. It's no good just ringing them up, it has to be in writing (you can fill in the form and email it as per my previous link).

Ive already done this, they say lodging individual complaints is counteractive as they are carrying out a full investigation into the incidents and do not have the time to lodge individual cases.

[#3]

Quote from: jelv

That's a very interesting definition! If I can post a URL to the information and on accessing the URL the information can be read without requiring a password it IS in the public domain.

Quote from: Steve

That's why your a bright spark jelv Crossed my mind to.

Whats being asked for is an email from BT/Plusnet to ACS:Law that is not in the leaked archive:

Quote from: Toolbox

So I ask again, Can you post a copy of the follow up Email showing the corrected typo?

[#4]

Quote from: jelv

Quote from: Mand The information being asked for *isn't* in the public domain (that's why it's being asked for). That's a very interesting definition! If I can post a URL to the information and on accessing the URL the information can be read without requiring a password it IS in the public domain.

Just to clarify. The information that was requested was the follow up email from us to ACS:Law rectifying the clerical error. This information is not currently available in the public domain and you can't post the URL to it.
I'm not about to make this situation worse by posting more correspondence into the public domain.

[#5]

Quote from: foxtrck

Ive already done this, they say lodging individual complaints is counteractive as they are carrying out a full investigation into the incidents and do not have the time to lodge individual cases.

They don't have the time?
What planet are they on?
I would make the report anyway and if they are not going to action it find out who their boss is, in other words go up the line of mangement but in this case I would say it was a minister of parliment.
EDIT:
I remember using that sytem a few years ago when I was getting phone calls and I had a macro made up to fill the form in and every time they phoned I asked to go up the ladder and got a named person and reported them, guess what? the calls stoped coming.

[#6]

Quote from: foxtrck

Ive already done this, they say lodging individual complaints is counteractive as they are carrying out a full investigation into the incidents and do not have the time to lodge individual cases.

are they not asking for just the plusnet side issue complaints and not the completely directed at acs:law issues when they ask to hear from PN customers  in the bbc news article

[#7]

I might have missed this, but I don't recall seeing a link to this interesting report before now:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/09/23/uk-isp-plusnet-illegal-file-sharing-judge-predicts-end-o...
It also links back here so could end up creating a black hole.......
BUT it does say that PN & others were in court last week "opposing" an NPO from Gallant McMillan and were successful in that CMW (Chief Master Winegarten ) postponed the hearing to 4th October.
Except it also says: "In the case above it may surprise some to learn that PlusNet didn't even send a lawyer" 

[#8]

If that is true, weldone Plunet a bit late but a move in the right direction.
Hang on, I thought Dave was there and he did not note any Plusnet person speaking against the order.
Or Have I got that wrong?

[#9]

Just seen some very good advice posted elsewhere:
[quote=https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php/topic,3165.msg31431.html#msg31431]Can I please urge those of you who have access to either BT or PlusNet customer forums to post and give clear details of how ordinary ISP customers can make a complaint to the ICO.
They don't have to have been in receipt of an ACS letter to make a complaint. Just to be a customer of an ISP that is handling and transmitting customer data insecurely.
Refer them to the ICO website here
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/data_protection.aspx
That page explains all the various ways you can complain including via a downloadable Word document to go by email.
and please encourage ALL of them to make complaints, about the way their ISP has sent unencrypted customer data to ACS by email, whether or not they have had an ACS letter.
They need to emphasise
1 - that their ISP owe them a duty of care in protecting their data
2 - that their ISP failed to follow clear court instructions in the NPO about encryption and the means of transmission and is therefore in breach of the court order itself.
3 - that their ISP has breached the DPA requirements
4 - that the nature of the breach and  the fact that many innocent people may be caught up in this process, has caused them distress and anxiety - ie HARM.
5 - that they are making a formal DPA complaint and wish the ICO to vigorously investigate, and if necessary, prosecute what appears to be a very serious breach.
At the same time they should write to the BT CEO and make the same points. cceo AT bt.com - a publicly available email address for customer queries - and NORMALLY quite responsive (except to repetitive privacy complaints when it doesn't seem to work very well)
I'm afraid I have access to neither forum.

Well I've done as Robert asked!

[#10]

Quote from: HPsauce

BUT it does say that PN & others were in court last week "opposing" an NPO from Gallant McMillan and were successful in that CMW (Chief Master Winegarten ) postponed the hearing to 4th October.

In court in so much had an invite, but they didn't RSVP, so that was almost that, except in the end, the Judge being concerned that he was being duped, tried to do some of their job for them (Plusnet et al) and adjourned the hearing whilst asking for more information before granting to Court Order.
I hope to hell Plusnet/BT are present at the adjournment hearing on 4th October, I mean it Plusnet guys & gals, if your not there the explosion of posts here is going to make the posts we've had so far look like an evenings stroll in the park.

[#11]

Quote from: Toolbox

You may have a contract with a penalty clause. Before you cancel make sure you read T&C of the contract. It could include instalation cost and a year or more line rental. Not to mention internet connection.

I also have consumer rights though. Distance selling regs maybe.
It would be really cheeky for a company to try and claim all what you mentioned when i dont even have a phone line installed at my house yet let alone used their service.

[#12]

Interestingly the BBC reports are now bearing down on BT, including naming their lawyer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11434809

[#13]

Quote from: adriang

Quote from: Toolbox You may have a contract with a penalty clause. Before you cancel make sure you read T&C of the contract. It could include instalation cost and a year or more line rental. Not to mention internet connection. I also have consumer rights though. Distance selling regs maybe. It would be really cheeky for a company to try and claim all what you mentioned when i dont even have a phone line installed at my house yet let alone used their service.

If you say so but others have had to payup in the past.

[#14]

Quote from: HPsauce

<snip> BUT it does say that PN & others were in court last week "opposing" an NPO from Gallant McMillan and were successful in that CMW (Chief Master Winegarten ) postponed the hearing to 4th October. Except it also says: "In the case above it may surprise some to learn that PlusNet didn't even send a lawyer"

Quote from: Toolbox

If that is true, weldone Plunet a bit late but a move in the right direction. Hang on, I thought Dave was there and he did not note any Plusnet person speaking against the order. Or Have I got that wrong?

Torrentfreak carried a full and accurate article: http://torrentfreak.com/judge-warns-of-end-to-file-sharing-cash-demands-100922/
As stated there:

Quote

Despite promising that a member of their group’s legal team would be present in court to hear this Ministry of Sound application Monday, no one with any legal ability was sent, just a single observer who sat at the back in silence.

[#15]

Quote from: HPsauce

I might have missed this, but I don't recall seeing a link to this interesting report before now: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/09/23/uk-isp-plusnet-illegal-file-sharing-judge-predicts-end-o... It also links back here so could end up creating a black hole....... BUT it does say that PN & others were in court last week "opposing" an NPO from Gallant McMillan and were successful in that CMW (Chief Master Winegarten ) postponed the hearing to 4th October. Except it also says: "In the case above it may surprise some to learn that PlusNet didn't even send a lawyer"

i belive the CMW recived a letter from a member of public and that is why he postponed till 4th oct.
asbo goes to look for davethir posts when he came bak from the hearing