Quote:
Originally Posted by lymmranger
........apart from an extremely agressive first approach these guys are no different to Davenprt Lyons and ACS. (They are only interested in getting your cash!)
As such their claim should be treated exactly the same. As the account holder (I presume) you are held totally responsible. (in their eyes)
In reality you have to have either been personally responsible or authorised the action. (in which case seek legal advice)
If the above is not the case then reply and deny. Remember to keep your response simple - any additional information you supply will/may be used against you.
I can also reccomend you visit the chatroom at "beingthreatened"
By the way welcome to the game  |
The more I have read about this phenomenon (being a 'virgin' till the recorded letter arrived) the more annoyed I have become.
I have not downloaded what I am being accused of and neither let anyone else do it.
All the various contributions on here illustrate that this is a fundamentally unsound (and in some cases illegitimate) technology and that it is 'unsafe and unsound' as a means to establish guilt (in the UK certainly- entrapment and/ or no evidence that ISP 'owner' was present when alleged offence took place). There have been TV programmes apparently on UK TV showing how easy (and frequent) is the hijacking/ piggy backing / hacking of wireless internet connections.
I have come to the conclusion that this is indeed simply a fishing exercise to smoke out those who indeed know they are guilty ('fair cop guv' scenarios) or the nervy/ non-cognate people who will pay up to 'make it all go away'.
The fact that it is- for the moment- a legitimate practice for erstwhile bona fide UK law firms to engage in only makes it more annoying.