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

[#1]

Just saw this headline this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510

Quote

ACS:Law, the controversial law firm that tried to get money from people by accusing them of illegal file-sharing, appears to be back in business. Ralli Solicitors, which represented some of those accused by ACS:Law during a UK court case, has told the BBC it is now advising a client based in Greece.

[#2]

See here for a more reasoned view of that article.

[#3]

Quote

BBC News – Lawyer denies Greek piracy ‘scam‘ www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510 21 Jul 2011 – A lawyer whose firm demanded money from alleged illegal downloaders in the United Kingdom has denied re-starting the scheme in Greece.

It seems no one totally trusts the ex-ACS:LAW solicitor.

[#4]

Poor Andrew Crossley.  His Tribunal hearing didn't seem to go very well.
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-anti-piracy-lawyer-suspended-for-2-years-120116/
B.

[#5]

Well, what goes around, comes around.

[#6]

Why wasn't he charged with fraud?

[#7]

Fantastic news......
Let's hope the government takes note and rethinks the digital economy act
An IP address does not = a person.

[#8]

Does a Car Registration = A person?
Does a IP Address + MAC = A person?

[#9]

Nothing on this for 6 months and then this! Feel more sorry for those he pursued.
Car reg, IP, MAC just relate to the hardware - still need to prove who used it. In the case of cars we have speed cameras that take photographs of the driver at the time.
I too wish this whole focus was on a 'carrot' rather than 'stick' approach - the technology and freedoms available will always be a barrier to heavy-handed approaches imo.

[#10]

In the case of a vehicle with the inability of many speed and ANPR camera to positively ID the driver, the law is that the vehicle owner is responsible for the offense unless he/she provides details of who was driving if they wish to claim it was not them - and giving false details is of course an offense of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[#11]

Must be a need to have the photograph though but maybe to speed up the protest. In the case of a shared non-owned vehicle it could be much harder to point the finger. Detest speed cameras though that is another topic...

[#12]

Not all speed cameras are driver facing. In this area I can't think of one they are all rear cameras. Not sure what you mean about shared non-owned vehicle but the one and only time I been fined for speeding was in a company pool car and first the summons go to the registered owner. Which in my case was the leasing company. The leasing company then supplied the details of the company I worked for, they then received a summons. The company responded by naming the driver, which was me then I received a summons. Most companies will keep a log of drivers as I believe they can be fined if they can't supply the information.
So I believe an IP and MAC is enough to prove copyright infringement to a person. If the owner of the PC did not do the downloading they must provide a name of the person that did.

[#13]

I mean a shared work vehicle which isn't always possible to find out who was driving. I didn't refer to GATSO cameras which are rear-facing but the newer types typically hidden in the back of vans etc.
As for IP and MAC that isn't enough to prove copyright infringement as far as I am concerned as these can be spoofed. The user won't always be able to pin-point who did and if minors are involved this is where the approach is wrong.
I still maintain the 'carrot rather than the stick' approach is the best way forward but doubt this will change anytime soon given the way the industry is trying to censor the internet at the minute.

[#14]

Quote from: itsme

So I believe an IP and MAC is enough to prove copyright infringement to a person. If the owner of the PC did not do the downloading they must provide a name of the person that did.

That's a contradiction: You state that you believe that an IP address and a MAC (and ACS:Law never claimed to have MACs btw) is enough to prove copyright infringement to *a person* and then say 'if the owner did not do the downloading...'. And IP address or a MAC, or both, are unreliable. They are both produced as 'evidence' from (as we have seen) highly fallible systems that suffer from human error, data corruption, mistranscription and spoofing to name a few of the problems that have been seen. A *massive* error rate was KNOWN to exist while these schemes were still active.
If you don't believe me... just wait until you get your first wrongful notfication under the Digital Economy Act when (if) the measures kick in. 
In other news, the story of Crossley's suspension is now also being reported on the BBC website and the Guardian (among others).

[#15]

Disclaimer - I'm not an expert.
On another forum/site a poster was holding forth in respect of a "fraudulalent" credit card transaction. Their bank was using the fact that the IP address of the router/computer used to carry out the "fraud" was the same IP address as had been used on regular occassions for logging into the users internet banking as just one of the pieces of evidence that there was no fraud as such and the transaction was carried out either by the cardholder or alternatively by persons with direct access to the card details and on the same computer/router. (release of such details by the cardholder to others alone would be reason itself for the bank to refuse the fraud claim)
The poster seemed not to have appreciated the significance of this IP address logging - otherwise they would have kept rather quiet rather than reveal it.
Other members of the forum suggested that the poster either was being rather economical with the truth or alternatively they needed to have a very in depth conversation with other members of the household who might have had access to their card and other details.
Strange to report nothing further was heard from this particular poster......