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

[#1]

Here's a  Reply letter from David Cameron's office about It.

Quote

Thank you for contacting us about the Digital Economy Bill. We take what you say on board, and I am happy to respond to your concerns. Britain has been made to wait too long for legislation updating the regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. We regret that once the Government got around to considering these issues, it did not allocate the sufficient time in the House of Commons for proper legislative scrutiny. It says a great deal about their support for the creative industries that despite considering many of these issues as far back as 2006 they have only now just brought this piece of legislation forward. We took the decision to seek to remove those clauses of the Digital Economy Bill that we did not support or that we did not feel received proper legislative scrutiny, while supporting the Bill as a whole. Rejecting the Bill would have been an unacceptable set-back for the important measures it contains. We support the Bill’s efforts to tackle online copyright infringement. This is an extremely serious issue that costs the creative industries hundreds of millions of pounds each year. We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual property framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. Internet piracy also puts consumers at risk, as those who download illegal material increase the likelihood of their machines being attacked by computer viruses, and are exposed to unverified advertising and inappropriate material. The measures in the Bill aimed at tackling online copyright infringement received robust scrutiny in the House of Lords. We were concerned about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the original clauses and as such the Bill now has a super-affirmative resolution in it. This means Parliament will debate any order that the Secretary of State lays that would allow people to be disconnected. These measures can also not be introduced for 12 months after the Bill becomes law. This means that we are by no means rushing in to these decisions and that the next Parliament will be able to consider them beforehand. The measures in the Bill designed to tackle illegal peer to peer file sharing set up a proportionate regime that would lead to people having their internet connection temporarily suspended, but only following public consultation, repeated warnings and due process. It will not, as many have suggested, lead to people being disconnected without an appeal. Even if people are disconnected they will be able to sign up to another ISP immediately without penalty. While we have no doubt that these measures could have been improved if the Government had allocated time for this Bill to be debated in Committee, blocking these measures in their entirety would have risked hundreds of thousands of jobs in the TV, film, music and sports industries and was therefore not something we were not willing to do. Conservatives recognise the need to establish a workable system for unlocking the wealth of inaccessible content known as orphan works, but we have consistently stated that in no way should this Bill actually harm content creators. We were keen to address the problem of people stripping out identifying information from a digital image and wanted to clamp down on this and ensure that the Bill does not encourage such activities. We also wanted specific requirements for a search for the rights holder and a system in place if that rights holder comes forward at a later date. After Government failed to amend the Bill in line with these protections, we insisted that clause 43 be removed from the Bill. The debate on copyright is not yet over and we will seek to revisit options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright following the General Election. Thank you, once again, for getting in touch. I hope my reply was useful. Yours sincerely, James James Bull Office of David Cameron David.Cameron@Conservatives.com

[#2]

Apologies if posted earlier in this long thread!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316260/BT-sent-customer-details-leaked-porn-list-law...

[#3]

If I want to find out what information have, via Data Protection Act request, Plusnet will charge me £10.
If a 3rd party wants to do the same via a NPO, Plusnet will do the same - free of charge!

[#4]

I see the irony but in theory at least, one is supposed to be about the due process of law, and in general terms people and companies freely and willingly cooperating with the process of law is good thing, whereas for many if they could ask a company to give them their DPA request free of charge they'd just charge around getting them it would harm business who would be processing requests and loosing money in doing so.
However, the process of law in this case was been subverted into a scam, which is why the irony arises.

[#5]

Quote from: et0

The actual cost to the ISP is hardly significant - retrieving a list from a database and then emailling it (insecurely ;)) surely doesn't occupy more than a man-day or so of time, I'm not losing any sleep over that.

Do you think that the DEA will increase or decrease the number of claims? If you believe it will increase the number of claims significantly, as most comemtators that I have followed seem to suggest, then this will represent a major cost to ISPs. Furthermore the latest proposals say that the ISPs should pay 25% of those costs. The means that they cannot recover all those costs. So that is a real worry for all broadband users.

[#6]

Quote from: A

If I want to find out what information have, via Data Protection Act request, Plusnet will charge me £10. If a 3rd party wants to do the same via a NPO, Plusnet will do the same - free of charge!

That's a good point actually, especially if you are a current customer. I, as an ex-customer would not object to the charge.

[#7]

So having skimmed through from page 4 up to page 98 I have to ask the following;
A - Are plusnet incompetent?  Or is it just that stupid people are employed?  Its got to be one of the 2 given how obviously the idea of encryption seems to have slid past you all.
B - Why are Plusnet providing personal details ad nauseum without taking any action to discourage excessive fishing trips?
C - Why upon learning of the data leak have plusnet decided to take no action against ACS:Law?

[#8]

My apolgies if this has been asked before, but I can't find it.
I use Linux and regularly download files of Linux programs which are some 700-800MB long. It is, of course, perfectly legal to download them.
However, what is to prevent Plusnet saying "He has downloaded a large file, so it must be an illegal download of some music or video. Let's add his name to the list to send to ACS Law."
In other words, can Plusnet always be 100% certain that what is downloaded is illegal, or are they just guessing?
As someone who has never downloaded anything which is not legitimate, it is very worrying that I may be wrongly put on this ACS Law list.
Keith

[#9]

Plusnet in no way make any judgement or guess about what you are doing, the information supplied to ACS:Law was requested by ACS:Law on basis that ACS:Law were saying that the IP addresses in question were involved in illegal activity.

[#10]

Quote from: A

If I want to find out what information have, via Data Protection Act request, Plusnet will charge me £10. If a 3rd party wants to do the same via a NPO, Plusnet will do the same - free of charge!

One thing that comes to my mind is if they pass data to a 3rd party and that party to a 4th and then to  5th and the data the person is about knows nothing off this how can they request a DPA on what data is held about them from the 3rd, 4th and 5th person.
I think either the orginal data holder should notify the persons whos data it is of the 3rd party and the 3rd party should do the same and so on.
Or the 1st party should maintain the data trail and when requested by the person making a DPA request provide the full trail of the data of 3rd, 4th and 5th persons holding the data.
And should that trail not be maintained or the person informed of the data transfer there should be a very heavy fine.
In the case of ACS law I believe the data was shared to at least two other persons before reaching millions.

[#11]

I don't believe that Plusnet were obliged (or permitted) to pass hundreds of private details onto BT "for subsequent processing" due to any legal obligation (real or imagined) between Plusnet and ACS:Law.

[#12]

BT are acting as Plusnet solicitors, it would be normal to pass transactions like this via your solicitor.
And as Plusnet are (I believe) a wholly owned subsidiary of BT, whilst the DPA must be observed, what is Plusnets (it's customer database) is BT's.

[#13]

Good point, they never had a court order to pass it on to BT or anyone else including a solicitor.

[#14]

Quote from: A

If I want to find out what information have, via Data Protection Act request, Plusnet will charge me £10. If a 3rd party wants to do the same via a NPO, Plusnet will do the same - free of charge!

A DPA request gives you everything we hold about you. A request from a court order gives only name and address.
That said, we've talked about the possibility of charging for these requests in future, if there comes a point when we will be complying with any more.

[#15]

Quote from: Mand

Re the last point, I did say *prior* to the Nov 09 NPO. We're still seeing customers being sent letters from that one and ones after it, but anything prior to that should be done with AFAIK.

Comment removed by me because about 26 other people had made the point better with references