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

[#1]

Guys, we're not ignoring you, there just isn't a huge amount of information we're in a position to share, that isn't already reported elsewhere.
Our lawyers continue to attend the court hearings, and we've certainly not lost sight of this. Having said that, I think it's probable that we'll wait on the outcome before reaching a conclusion about the best way to proceed.
Our legal bods have already been looking into which of the arguments used against Media CAT, also apply to Digiprotect. Particularly the licensing element. The potential for the subscriber data we've given them to be used in other speculative invoicing scams is obviously a concern. We'll do what we reasonably can to avoid this ever coming to fruition. If that involves having to go through the courts then I'm sure that's what we'll do.
Regarding writing to Companies House, I might be missing the obvious, but I don't think there would be any great benefit would there?

Quote from: christmas

Despite claiming to have robust systems protecting customers details, no explaination has been given how the system allowed an email of unencrypted information was to be distributed.

The data was manually emailed by a BT employee. That employee failed to encrypt the attached files, I'm not sure what more you're after in the way of an explanation?

Quote from: christmas

Are customers who's details were sent unencryted to be informed of such a breach of their privacy?

They already have been, we emailed them all.

[#2]

Up to now Plusnet has asked users who have received letters to contact them. AIUI all legal action is now ended so there is no reason for Plusnet to contact all users who have ever been on any NPO list and advise them appropriately - up to now I believe it has only been in relation to the leaked spreadsheet.

[#3]

Quote from: Bob

Regarding writing to Companies House, I might be missing the obvious, but I don't think there would be any great benefit would there?

I'm not sure to what comment specifically you are refering Bob, but in general from the Slyck forums, the reason for contacting Companies House are
1) CGB Ltd attempted to wind up illegally
2) MediaCAT cannot enter into voluntary liquidation whilst still party to an ongoing legal case (i.e. MediaCAT appear to be acting illegally along with CGB Ltd)
3) Contacting companies house will prevent the illegal disolutions, which makes it harder for any wrong doer to escape from the consequences of that wrong doing

[#4]

Quote from: Bob

The potential for the subscriber data we've given them to be used in other speculative invoicing scams is obviously a concern.

Although purely an interested reader of this thread I find that a very interesting comment,  coming from where it came from 

[#5]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

1) CGB Ltd attempted to wind up illegally 2) MediaCAT cannot enter into voluntary liquidation whilst still party to an ongoing legal case (i.e. MediaCAT appear to be acting illegally along with CGB Ltd) 3) Contacting companies house will prevent the illegal disolutions, which makes it harder for any wrong doer to escape from the consequences of that wrong doing

And by the time BT/Plusnet legals work that out and take no action it will be to late.
At least let us know your legals looked at it and not just ignored or never gave it any thought.
Did you ever get that report subject to a court order?

[#6]

Quote from: Bob

They already have been, we emailed them all.

Bob, as highlighted in all the threads about the changes to the home phone terms, and e-mail is NOT sufficient.

[#7]

Quote from: Bob

Guys, we're not ignoring you, there just isn't a huge amount of information we're in a position to share, that isn't already reported elsewhere.

Posts like this, even if its just to say we're listening but we've nothing new to share show that you're listening, rather than not posting anything and giving the impression that you're standing around with your fingers in your ears saying "La la la la we can't hear you" are worth the minutes it costs to post.
For a communications company you really don't know how to communicate.

[#8]

Quote from: Toolbox

And by the time BT/Plusnet legals work that out and take no action it will be to late.

In the case of MediaCAT, yes it would be too late once they are wound up... but once they are wound up they become a none issue anyway.
The issues we want BT/Plusnet to look into are the other NPO('s)

[#9]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

Quote from: Bob Regarding writing to Companies House, I might be missing the obvious, but I don't think there would be any great benefit would there? I'm not sure to what comment specifically you are refering Bob, but in general from the Slyck forums, the reason for contacting Companies House are 1) CGB Ltd attempted to wind up illegally 2) MediaCAT cannot enter into voluntary liquidation whilst still party to an ongoing legal case (i.e. MediaCAT appear to be acting illegally along with CGB Ltd) 3) Contacting companies house will prevent the illegal disolutions, which makes it harder for any wrong doer to escape from the consequences of that wrong doing

Thanks, I'll run it by our legal bods.

Quote from: Toolbox

Did you ever get that report subject to a court order?

Nope, not in any satisfactory capacity.

Quote from: avatastic

Quote from: Bob They already have been, we emailed them all. Bob, as highlighted in all the threads about the changes to the home phone terms, and e-mail is NOT sufficient.

So what would you suggest? In this instance I think the emails we sent served their purpose. It's a lot more than certain other ISPs involved did.

Quote from: avatastic

For a communications company you really don't know how to communicate.

It disappoints me to read that as I play quite a significant part in the communications we send out. We do make mistakes yes, but I like to think that we spare considerable thought towards our customers in almost anything we do.

[#10]

Quote from: Bob

It disappoints me to read that as I play quite a significant part in the communications we send out. We do make mistakes yes, but I like to think that we spare considerable thought towards our customers in almost anything we do.

I think Plusnet have done more on this issue for it's members (other than contesting the orders in the first place) than most ISP's.
I think members get a bit frustrated at how slow PN legals seem to be and always seem to be reacting to events rather than being proactive and controling the events.

[#11]

Plusnet are not making money out of this - it's in their commercial interest to drag their feet.

[#12]

I'm not so sure about that, yes, they are not making money from this, its a sink hole for them, and they will want to back away from costs, but the longer this drags on, the more hearings they have to observe, the more costs rise, if Plusnet could see a way to draw a line under this for themselves I'm sure they would.

[#13]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

if Plusnet could see a way to draw a line under this for themselves I'm sure they would.

I thought that would be quite easy.
Take out injunctions to stop the use of any data given out to those that applied for it with a court action.
Then in future contest all new claims for data including the DEA requests, let the government take them to court to get the data.
Inocent until proven guilty springs to bind.

[#14]

How does that draw a line under it for them?
Can BT/Plusnet be sure they won't be challenged in court and end up running huge costs?  How would a case that say lastest 2 years, had numerous hearings and drew in expert testimony from both sides draw a line under it for BT/Plusnet.  The equation here for BT/Plusnet is to avoid unwanted costs, whilst fulfilling its statutory duties whilst providing a service customers are prepared to pay for.
BT are already contesting the DEA, but once (if) it comes into force they will have to comply just as you or I are compelled to comply with the law.
I do not expect BT/Plusnet to become a consumer champion here, why would or should they?  Is it in their shareholders interests?  They are after all the people they are legally responsible to for their actions.
However, there is a duty of care owed to their customers, which I believe they failed to give, and there is commercial benefit to being able to claim (although too late now) that " we don't believe we should give details to companies that harass our customers and so we challenge all NPO's and demand strict rules about the use of all data obtained from NPO's" but BT/Plusnet missed the boat on that one despite many posters best efforts.

[#15]

Not sure if i'm allowed to link this , it's an article on BBC NEWS technology section about ACS LAW  .....definately a must read regarding this post.
Apologies if it's allready been linked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12424996