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

[#1]

Sorry officer I could not afford my car insurance but no need to book me and waste court time as I could not pay any fine either.
But anyway court fine would be a lot cheaper than car insurance for a 18 year old male who has just past test.

[#2]

Driving without insurance, is car seizure and 6 points.
6 points in the first 12 months of your licence means you must take your driving test again before you can get a new licence.

[#3]

Is a small technicality like the lack of a licence going to stop them driving?

[#4]

All;
I thought it was time for me to share a more detailed update on what we have been doing in relation to ACS:Law.  Over the last 4 months we have been working to resolve a number of outstanding issues around the Norwich Pharmacal Orders in light of developments concerning ACS:Law.  We can now share with you some of the work we have done.

With regard to Media CAT, we have been under a court order since July last year to supply them with details belonging to hundreds more customers. We refused to do so and have now secured a further order to set aside the July order, meaning that the customer details will not be disclosed. Media CAT has also confirmed that all customer data that we sent to them in the past has now been deleted.

Ministry of Sound had the benefit of a court order from May 2010, which similarly required us to send them thousands of customer details. We have now obtained another court order releasing us from that obligation. As was reported last year, Ministry of Sound withdrew their second application after we raised important issues we felt the court should consider.

Digiprotect was another client of ACS:Law. We have already disclosed some customer details to them under a court order in early 2010.  Since even before the revelations about ACS:Law, we had been challenging Digiprotect on their use of that data but did not get satisfactory answers. We have now taken the matter back to court and secured an order requiring Digiprotect either to issue proceedings or delete the data. The time for issuing proceedings has now expired and the data should be deleted.

As I have stated before Plusnet must still be able to facilitate legal requests, via the Norwich Pharmacal framework, whereby genuine rights holders who wish to enforce their copyright in a proportionate way can do so.  With that in mind we have been working on a new framework policy to deal with future applications, in a bid to protect our customers. We continue to develop that policy, particularly in light of the comments of HHJ Birss QC in the recent Media CAT cases. 
Thanks,
Fletch

[#5]

Thank you for the update, good to see the action behind the scenes, a pity you could not inform us of some of those developments sooner, particularly letting us know of any court dates as I'm sure some people would have been interested to attend and hear argument.

[#6]

Quote from: Fletch

All; I thought it was time for me to share a more detailed update on what we have been doing in relation to ACS:Law.  Over the last 4 months we have been working to resolve a number of outstanding issues around the Norwich Pharmacal Orders in light of developments concerning ACS:Law.  We can now share with you some of the work .............. Fletch

PLUSNET (Fletch)
Thank you for your work securing this result. I have been quite vocal in the past regarding this issue and would like to say that I cannot think of any other ISP that would have gone this far for their customers. BT and SKY don't appear as customer focused and I don't think that any other ISP would have investigated the concerns raised on a forum like you have done..
Again I thank you for your efforts and hope you also push for a repeal of the digital economy act as the standard of evidence is exactly the same as used in all these "speculative invoice" cases you mention.  IP ADDRESS IS NOT PROOF OF WRONGDOING.
THANKS
Davethir

[#7]

It's not over yet.

[#8]

Thank you Plusnet.
Yes it is still ongoing, but i hope that PN / BT are doing everything possible to ensure the DEA does not include the same flaws that were used in this speculative invoicing scheme.

[#9]

A big thankyou for the update Fletch.
Its is nice to see a large company doing something to protect customers.
I know we have not always been happy with the way things have been handled but now we can see you were active in the background.
I hope you now join with the other ISP's if you have not already done so (BT) in the review of the DEA and the use of IP's as being fact that a person with that IP is guilty before being tried in a court of law.

[#10]

BT and Talk Talk are the only ISP's asking for a review of the DEA.

[#11]

But it's only because they want to avoid the financial costs of the DEA.
It would hit the profit margin.
They couldn't give a toss about customer privacy - especially BT.

[#12]

Any commercial companies primary motivation is always going to be profit, and that is going to be especially true of a publicly traded company.  Indeed to concentrate on other things would probably be illegal as the company would be deliberately destroying shareholder value.
Customer privacy is only ever going to be a concern of commercial organisation where regulation forces it, or where it makes commercial sense to protect customer privacy.
If you have a problem with that focus, then it isn't BT or indeed any company you need to aim your ire at, but instead at the capitalist society we live in.
That's not to say that you shouldn't ask BT (or any company) to take your privacy more seriously, but you must provide a commercial reason for it doing so.
When I have urged Plusnet to take ACS:Law et al more seriously, I have concentrated on the exploitation of Plusnet's customers by a 3rd party, and the bad reputation it generates by allowing that.  When I have gone on about Plusnet's failures, I have concentrated on areas where I believe Plusnet have failed in their duty of care, and therefore could find themselves liable.

[#13]

My point was that BT don't care about their customers privacy or anything else of value - unless it has financial value to BT.
Whilst I wouldn't call myself an apologist for the Capitalist system, I do actually possess a small number of BT shares.

[#14]

Were Media CAT or Digiprotect even legitimate rights holders? My understanding is they were 'working' for them.
I'd like future NPO requests to be honoured only if it is actually the rights holder, not a company (set up to) represent(ing) them which requests them.
I trust the issue of rights and ownership will be investigated, in court, before details are handed over.

[#15]

Quote from: avatastic

Were Media CAT or Digiprotect even legitimate rights holders? My understanding is they were 'working' for them.

This was never settled, although Judge Briss made it clear it seemed unlikely.
Plusnet (or any ISP) can certainly ask, but are unlikely to challange someone who claims to hold the correct rights unless they really have reason to suspect the correct rights are not held.