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

[#1]

And even back then, Bob, my memory tells me the password had to be a minimum of 5 characters (and a maximum of 8 - and using only letters and numbers). So the 1 character password would never have been allowed!
If that memory is correct from that era, and someone still has the 5 character password from many years ago, then a Plusnet operative can only get the first two or last two characters from the password. Whilst that only leaves 36 permutations undisclosed for that missing character (26 letters or numbers 0-9), I think having a weak 5 character password loose on the internet that hasn't been changed for at least 5 years is more of a risk than the risk of a member of staff snaffling it to be honest!
7 character passwords (and below) are classed as very weak these days...

[#2]

My password also includes non alphanumerics, so the permutations are even greater.
Ok risk is there, but that is life: it is reasonable.

[#3]

This topic is no longer on-topic.
How did BT / Plusnet escape severe financial penalties for sending unencrypted emails containing personal data?
I thought they were supposed to provide the information on a encrypted CD?

[#4]

http://www.ralli.co.uk/news/bbc-s-the-one-show-team-up-with-ralli-to-investigate-harassment-case&arc...

Quote

Consumer champion Dominic Littlewood from BBC The One Show, teams up with Manchester law firm Ralli to investigate the real story behind the activity of ACS Law and illegal downloading. The programme is schedule for broadcast Thursday 10 March on BBC1 at 7pm.

[#5]

Quote from: A

This topic is no longer on-topic. How did BT / Plusnet escape severe financial penalties for sending unencrypted emails containing personal data? I thought they were supposed to provide the information on a encrypted CD?

it looks to me like Plusnet and BT are trying to forget about this....we have had no updates for weeks now.

[#6]

The court case resumes next week so may be more comments then.

[#7]

Quote from: davethir

Quote from: A This topic is no longer on-topic. How did BT / Plusnet escape severe financial penalties for sending unencrypted emails containing personal data? I thought they were supposed to provide the information on a encrypted CD? it looks to me like Plusnet and BT are trying to forget about this....we have had no updates for weeks now.

When and if we get updates of value/that we can share with you, then we will Dave. That's not to say that we won't need the odd subtle prod mind you

[#8]

Do you have any updates you can't share with us?

[#9]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/17/acs_law_cases_closed_judge_considers_costs/

[#10]

Also made it to the beeb: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12767714

[#11]

In Court....

Quote

His barrister Paul Parker argued in Wednesday's court hearing that he should not be liable for costs. He said that Mr Crossley's file-sharing case load had operated at a loss, with Mr Crossley claiming to have spent £750,000 on pursuing net pirates while making £300,000 from people paying fines.

In The Telegraph Nov 2010...

Quote

When we spoke he had portrayed himself as a pauper, telling me that ‘less than a month ago’ he had been wandering around an air show with no money in his pocket and not a ‘penny to my name’. The leaked data painted a very different picture....... (Another leaked email revealed that he’d just bought a Bentley Arnage, was considering buying a Ferrari F430 Spider ‘in a couple of months’ and was hoping to move into a new home with ‘five double bedrooms, three bathrooms and four reception rooms.’) ‘Hi Paul,’ he said, a few days later in an email to me. ‘One thing I wanted to scratch from the interview was I said I had no money recently. That was not an accurate reflection of the position.’

[#12]

Since when has availability of funds had anything to do with liability?

[#13]

I think we're only seeing part of the argument here, jelv.  Crossley is being pursued for 'wasted costs' on the grounds that he abused the legal process in a money-making scam. He is defending himself by saying he didn't actually make money out of it. Still a duff argument, in my opinion, but a bit more complicated than claiming he can't be liable if he hasn't got any money....
Best wishes
Chris

[#14]

Quote from: ChrisL

defending himself by saying he didn't actually make money out of it.

So his defence is that he was incompetent at his intended money-making activity, that is unlikely to be accepted by the courts.

[#15]

I imagine that if the judge mentions it in mitigation in the ruling that Lawdit will consider appealing, Crossley has given other numbers to other people, and some simple maths on £300k show that that number is incredibly unlikely.