Have you received a letter from Davenport Lyons or ACS? - Page 51

04-10-2010, 18:23

Quote:

Sorry! The Ministry of Sound website is currently unavailable.

Love it when the masses have an uprising!

**Maggy** · 05-10-2010, 08:11

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11467347

Quote:

BT is seeking a moratorium on legal applications to obtain details of its customers who are alleged to have illegally shared files online.
The firm outlined its stance following a high-profile data breach at London law firm ACS:Law last week.
The leak saw thousands of customers' details from various ISPs - including BT-owned PlusNet - published online.
BT said that it wanted a temporary halt on all new and existing applications until a "test case" could be heard.

Rchivist · 05-10-2010, 09:23

Thanks for the link.
Let's hope BT also have a moratorium on sending their customers' names and addresses and IP addresses in their thousands, out to law firms, by email, in unencrypted format, whch they have admitted that they did. Presumably the ICO has already made that clear to them?

Kymmy · 05-10-2010, 10:28

There's three seperate issues here

1# BT's sending of personal data unencrypted (so a privacy issue)
2# ACS's requests to a court requesting details of account holders based on IP/DATE/TIME
3# ACS's questionable practice on obtaining said IPs and the legitamacy/accuracy of the IPs

I'd rather the ISPs' all join up and fight #3 in the courts as that would stop them dead in the water and #1 and #2 simply would cease being an issue..

**Chris** · 05-10-2010, 11:17

The problem is, until now most ISPs have been happy to supply ACS with the details they require because they can charge an administrative fee for doing so (and because contesting the requests at court would cost them money). They are only beginning to turn against the idea because of the potential for reputational damage in the wake of the ACS data leak.

Rchivist · 05-10-2010, 14:11

There's a thoughtful and very useful legal summary of the flaws in the evidence gathering model, here:
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...thkey=CL3JpeIE
or
http://tinyurl.com/2vnvp6r

Sirius · 05-10-2010, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

There's three seperate issues here

1# BT's sending of personal data unencrypted (so a privacy issue)
2# ACS's requests to a court requesting details of account holders based on IP/DATE/TIME
3# ACS's questionable practice on obtaining said IPs and the legitamacy/accuracy of the IPs

I'd rather the ISPs' all join up and fight #3 in the courts as that would stop them dead in the water and #1 and #2 simply would cease being an issue..

The lawyers involved in this dubious business model hopefully will lose there first case in court and will then have to stop this legalised blackmail.

Mick Fisher · 06-10-2010, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

The lawyers involved in this dubious business model hopefully will lose there first case in court and will then have to stop this legalised blackmail.

I'll drink to that!

Rchivist · 03-11-2010, 22:15

Some updates - BT have now deleted most of the requested IP records that MoS were looking for, and MoS are dropping their NPO naming BT - see articles below.

http://www.responsesource.com/releas...hp?relid=60424

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=&oq=&gs_rfai=
(be quick, the original has come down)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...filesharing-bt

http://www.slyck.com/story2115_BT_De...f_Sound_****ed

**Chris** · 03-11-2010, 23:22

That last link is never going to work if it has a sweary word in it. It will get filtered.

Sirius · 04-11-2010, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rchivist

Some updates - BT have now deleted most of the requested IP records that MoS were looking for, and MoS are dropping their NPO naming BT - see articles below.

http://www.responsesource.com/releas...hp?relid=60424

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...=&oq=&gs_rfai=
(be quick, the original has come down)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...filesharing-bt

http://www.slyck.com/story2115_BT_De...f_Sound_****ed

It just gets better and better

Rchivist · 04-11-2010, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

That last link is never going to work if it has a sweary word in it. It will get filtered.

Try this instead
http://tinyurl.com/386estt

Ytrewq · 07-11-2010, 08:33

I was looking at the thread over on slyck and there is some debate over records required for data retention laws and operational ip logs from a radius server (i think that is the name), it was said that this was how BT was able to delete logs aster 90 days despite data retention laws suggesting a longer timescale and that the records required for data retention are more for serious crime and not civil.

Does anyone here know if that is the case and the timescales involved for other isps like virgin etc.

lymmranger · 11-11-2010, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ytrewq

I was looking at the thread over on slyck and there is some debate over records required for data retention laws and operational ip logs from a radius server (i think that is the name), it was said that this was how BT was able to delete logs aster 90 days despite data retention laws suggesting a longer timescale and that the records required for data retention are more for serious crime and not civil.

Does anyone here know if that is the case and the timescales involved for other isps like virgin etc.

This is being discussed in great detail in the very place you mention, it would appear that "legally" certain information has to be kept.
BUT....
The info required to identify an account holder does not (i.e. info of interest to ACS etc). It would also appear that each ISP has a slightly different privacy policy and has different views on how long it decides to keep logs for

I find it quite confusing, but reckon it does add to the argument that what little evidence they hold against you is seriously flawed

Ytrewq · 11-11-2010, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lymmranger

This is being discussed in great detail in the very place you mention, it would appear that "legally" certain information has to be kept.
BUT....
The info required to identify an account holder does not (i.e. info of interest to ACS etc). It would also appear that each ISP has a slightly different privacy policy and has different views on how long it decides to keep logs for

I find it quite confusing, but reckon it does add to the argument that what little evidence they hold against you is seriously flawed

Agreed, the question was asked about the ISPs who started to contest but were in posession of information, ie TalkTalk and Virgin as to if they had to hold onto that information or if they could destroy it once they were dropped from the court order and wondered what peoples thoughts were on the subject.

Someone asked if we could start to see TalkTalk or Virgin Media customers from a long time ago being contacted through previosly supplied ACS lists if either of these companies were forced into a change of heart or decided to consent in future.

---------- Post added at 11:55 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Possable update.

From a post on Slyck

Initial post regarding new company made around the end of June this year,

So we have ACS making a new firm called Larper Limited, linked to an IT company whos director worked for Davenport Lyons and who is linked to a previous data controller NG3Systems.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence I wonder if this would be a way for Andy to dodge the SDT maybe working in a 'consultancy' role and passing information from ACS to Larper if he was shutdown saying that he had a responsability to his clients??? If that is the case then it is surely making a mockery of the whole SDT process.

Essentially if he is struck off offering is work to 'another firm' and starting again. I wonder if this was him forward planning