btblog

Goodbye then!

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:38:31 +0100

...and good riddance.

ACS:LAW have withdrawn from pursuing filesharers (as of 24/01/11). Keep letters on file and don't pay them a penny.

Read about this on the BBC News website.

ACS:Law e-mail leak exposes sensitive personal data

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 18:39:31 +0100

BeingThreatened.com does not condone the reported leak of ACS:Law's email data. In the strongest possible terms, we would highlight to anyone considering downloading the archive to think of how they would feel had it been their own privacy breached, and therefore abandon such thoughts.

BeingThreatened.com is extremely concerned at some of the reports in news articles that the data released contains credit card details, full lists of individuals returned from ISPs and case discussion, especially those relating to pornographic works. Such data clearly meets the requirements of 'Sensitive Personal Data' under section 2 of the Data Protection Act. Notably, subsections: (e) his physical or mental health or condition, (f)his sexual life, (g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence, or (h) any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him...

Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act concerning processing of personal data contains the following:
"[The processing—] (b)is carried out with appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects,"

In our opinion it is clear from the release that appropriate safeguards were NOT in place on the handling of this data. ACS:Law owe a duty of care to litigants and claimees alike. As a minimum, all legally or personally sensitive data should have been encrypted and all sensitive data removed from email attachments to a secure folder location. It is apparent from news articles that this is simply not the case.

This is also apparent from the data protection principles in Schedule 1, where ACS potentially are in breach of principle 7. Specifically:
"9 Having regard to the state of technological development and the cost of implementing any measures, the measures must ensure a level of security appropriate to—
(a)the harm that might result from such unauthorised or unlawful processing or accidental loss, destruction or damage as are mentioned in the seventh principle, and
(b)the nature of the data to be protected."

These suspected breaches of the Data Protection Act could potentially open ACS:Law up to claims under section 13 from any and all individual whose details have been made available in this data release. Given our opinions on the sections of law above, the intent of section 13 to provide monetary compensation in such circumstances is clear:

"13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements.
(1)An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
(2)An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—
(a)the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
(b)the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes."

So far ACS:Law have been noticeably silent. Whilst there was certainly no deliberate attempt on their behalf to expose this data, the damage is now done. Without prejudice as to any pending claims under the Data Protection Act, we strongly believe that Andrew Crossley should be issuing an apology to those individuals affected by this data release. Such an apology must be issued both publicly and personally for the lapses in data security; these have the potential to cause enormous damage to these individuals and their livelihoods.

Should anyone be considering taking action in relation to the release of their sensitive private data, we'd recommend seeking formal legal advice before doing so. However, in our opinion there is a reasonably strong prima facie case for doing so.

Speculative Invoicing Handbook Bonus Chapter: Not replying to a questionnaire

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:34:05 +0100

If you have received a questionnaire in the post from a certain law firm, you are probably wondering what to make of it. Read the all new bonus chapter to the Speculative Invoicing Handbook for our take on it:

Bonus Chapter: Not replying to a questionnaire [pdf]

Beingthreatened.com presents: The Speculative Invoicing Handbook

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:44:49 +0100

The Speculative Invoicing Handbook will tell you everything you need to know to understand your position when it comes to these filesharing cash demands. Download it today, read it today, spread the word!

Link: http://bit.ly/thehandbook

Is the government response to the p2p consultation a whitewash?

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:06:48 +0100

We'd like to thank all the members of our community who took the time to respond to the government consultation on legislation to address illegal p2p filesharing. You can read the responses and the government response to the consultation here. Unfortunately, the concerns raised by our community seem to have been largely ignored.

We are extremely dissatisfied with the consultation process undertaken on the problem of illicit filesharing. The summary published alongside the government consultation response, and indeed many of the responses from individuals, consumer groups and internet service providers show clear concerns with regards to many of the initial proposals.

Many of the individual responses and several of the consumer group replies, including our own, point out the damage caused by mistaken or poorly evidenced allegations.

The government response however fails completely to put any provisions in place to deal with mistaken allegations. Whilst there is a right for appeal, there is no consequence to a rights holder for making vexatious and false claims. Additionally, there is no obligation for a rights holder to even follow the new process.

We are concerned that the actions of law firms such as ACS:Law will only continue, and may even escalate given that the additional legal burden of the new act will make defence more difficult. A key area of concern regards the information which the ISPs are being compelled to collect. Unless this information is extremely carefully handled, unscrupulous law firms may use it as additional ammunition to bolster their current tactics rather than follow the new statutory method for dispute resolution.

What is most disappointing to our group is that the substance of the government response appears almost entirely unedited from previous options mooted in public, the leaked draft of the legislation and the position of Peter Mandelson reported in the press. Despite the weighting of responses being against some of the more controversial options in the act, it is clear much of the consultation has been entirely ignored. Instead the government has used the minority of reports from rights holders and umbrella organisations (incidentally responding on behalf of many groups which also responded individually) to justify their previous policy.

This does not give the majority of respondents from our community a feeling that democracy has been observed. It is clear that the consultation, at least from the government’s point of view, was nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. It looks suspiciously like there was never any intent to engage in a transparent democratic process. I am certain that our group will not be alone in these views.

We call on the consultation team to pass these views on to the appropriate government departments, and Peter Mandelson personally. Furthermore, we expect the government to formally respond to the top five points in the summary document, with appropriate legislative amendments made to address these points. This is the only way to countermand the likely feeling of many respondents that the previous government response is nothing but a whitewash brought about by creative industry lobbying with no regard for the rights of the individual.

Government consultation

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:26:53 +0100

We wish to remind everyone in the community that action is most effective when many people take it! Help us help you, we need as many people as possible to go and see their MP (preferably in person), and phone the SRA to lodge a complaint regarding your treatment.

Additionally, many of you will be aware that the government is holding a consultation at the moment on how to deal with illegal filesharing. As this action has demonstrated the huge number of false positives from the monitoring activities of Logistep and Digiprotect, we strongly encourage everyone to write their own personal response to the consultation. Note that you do not have to write a response to every question, but you can air your views on the general concepts. One main point in the consultation is to see if people would be happy for ISPs to disconnect individuals based on similar evidence to that used by ACS Law. It is this point that you might want to address.

The consultation documents can be found here: http://bit.ly/BIS_Consultation
A wiki which helps guide a response can be found here: http://bit.ly/pypRv

BeingThreatened has submitted its own response to the government on behalf of those innocently accused by ACS Law and Davenport Lyons. If you wish to read it, it is available here (pdf).

ACS Statement of Intent to Litigate

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:09:43 +0100

ACS Law have stated on their website that court filings were made on Friday 4th September. We would like to remind all visitors that for the vast majority of you this causes absolutely no change to the approach you should take to the letters. Assuming you are innocent, continue to reply and deny to letters you received.

However, it is also important to note that if you do receive a court summons, you MUST respond to it, and you really should get yourself a solicitor. Generally it would be best to seek a lawyer with an Intellectual Property law specialism; if you contact us after receiving a summons, we can refer you to a specialist firm.

We would also appreciate if anyone does receive a summons if you could make us aware through the contact form. We may be able to help your solicitor with the technical understanding of the case against you. If you do so, remember to include your e-mail address so we can contact you back.

There is currently no independent confirmation that any summons have yet been issued, so until we have seen proof of such, we will view this as yet another tactic to frighten recipients into paying up.

Meanwhile, we'd strongly encourage everyone to take action to help put and end to the mess. Specifically, go and see your MP!

Please note that this site is run by volunteers, not solicitors. We try to advise you to the best of our abilities, but if you feel you need clarification of the letters or any point of the process we recommend you contact your local CAB or solicitor.

Meeting your MP is easy, why not make an appointment today?

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:00:14 +0100

This blog post was written by Spudley, one of our chatroom regulars:

Acting for the community

After logging my complaints with the ICO, SRA and CAB, I figured the only thing left was to make an appointment to see my local MP. Last week I went to see my MP face to face. As a result of my visit he has been actively working on my behalf to try and bring an end to the unwarranted action.

Before my visit he had no idea that any of this was happening, so I feel like I have contributed to something that can help us all. Until the action was put into context, he was convinced it might be a scam. Needless to say he was extremely concerned that so many innocent people have been caught up in the speculative invoicing ACS Law are pursuing!

What can I do?

After I found how easy it is to go and see my MP I would strongly recommend everyone else does too. It takes very little time, and even if your MP is tarred by the expenses scandal, they still work for their constituents and will definitely be willing to help. What could you possibly lose? Help yourself, and the whole community, go and see your MP ASAP!

It took only an hour of my time, but has helped reduce my anxiety. I really can't stress enough how easy this was. Now I just have to wait for his reply informing me of what's happening next. Every extra MP who knows about this means more action, so the more of us who inform them, the better.

Preparation

I simply Googled for my MPs contact details and made a call to his office. They gave me the options of attending one of his rural surgeries that week, or waiting to attend an appointment at his main office the following week. I chose the latter option as it gave me some preparation time.

I spent that time compiling a small folder of information that I considered to be relevant. Facts and figures from the beingthreatened website and other links that I thought might prove to be interesting. I put the beingthreatened fact-sheet in but also handed him a copy to read there and then and take away.

I made a point of ensuring he understood that this wasn't a one-off but rather that there is a huge number of people affected by this operation. It is important that our MPs understand this as they cannot advise on individual legal cases.

Useful links
Find out who your MP is
Meeting your MP - get it right with our action plan [pdf]

Part 36 - what to do?

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:26:43 +0100

I've received a Part 36 offer, what does it mean?

The first and most important thing to note is that the Part 36 offer is little different to the initial letters of claim. As such, if you are innocent, you are still under no obligation to pay, and the offer will only come into effect for costs if you lose in court.

A Part 36 offer is a tactic used to make a formal offer to settle which has costs and other consequences if not accepted. If you have received an offer you will notice a statement that the offer is made 'without prejudice save as to costs', which means that if it is not accepted or ignored, the letter cannot be referred to by either parties at trial (if the other side do bring proceedings) but can be disclosed to the judge on the question of costs (court fees and legal fees).

What response should I give?

This is entirely up to you. You can choose to do one of three things:

1. Ignore the offer - Will be taken as non-acceptance, and would therefore have potential cost implications if ACS take you to court and win more than the settlement amount listed in your Part 36 offer.

2. Respond denying the offer - Holds similar consequences to ignoring the offer should a court case be lost, however would allow you to point out the grounds on which the offer was denied should a case go far enough that the Part 36 offer is considered as part of a costs award.

3. Accept the offer - Will end the action, as offered in the letter. Assuming you are not guilty, this would seem a remarkably daft tactic, as it'd leave you well out of pocket for something you are not responsible for.

Assuming you are not guilty of the alleged offence, the administrators of the site would recommend either 1 or 2 as you deem appropriate. If you choose to respond, be concise and state your reasons for refusing to accept the offer. Do not be tempted to justify a refusal with evidence, as with the other letters, ACS will attempt to use any information you give them to elicit further responses.

If you are in any doubt as to your best course of action, please seek legal advice. Please remember this site endeavours to offer you the best advice possible, but we are not solicitors.

Help or harm? It's up to you.

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:01:01 +0100

Now that we have quite a bit of a community here, and now that the community is making an effort to get more attention for this issue, I feel a brief word on image and presentation is needed. After all, we will only be taken seriously by the media and other organisations if we present a united and professional front.

When contacting/complaining about your letter to the media or elsewhere please:

- State the facts in a calm manner. Nobody is interested in reading rants or rumours.
- Present only the facts and let the reader make up their own mind. They can follow up and ask for more details if they need them. If you overwhelm them with lots of irrelevant detail straight away, chances are they will lose interest.
- Use your own words. I cannot stress this often enough. Don't just copy and paste a template and chuck it over - it will be ignored as just another piece of spam.
- Use a spellchecker! A poorly spelled or poorly written message is hard work for the person reading it, and it might put them off.

When publicising this issue or this community site elsewhere please:

- Use beingthreatened.com as the site link always. It is easier to remember.
- Keep it short and simple. "Received one of these letters of claim? beingthreatened.com has more information and a community of people who are in the same situation" does wonders.

When writing about this issue on your blog, forums, your website or Twitter please:

- Try to refrain from using the word 'scam'. Using it may earn you some additional threats from you-know-who and might result in the forum/your site being forced out of existence. While these letters are nasty and upsetting, they are unfortunately not a scam. Think of it more as a revenue generation scheme. 'Speculative invoicing' is a better term to use.
- Do not use ad hominem (personal) attacks. It's not big, it's not clever. Keep it clean and impersonal. You're angry, but channel that anger into something productive instead.
- Do not post personal or sensitive information about ACS:Law, Logistep, Digiprotect, its employees or anyone else who may be involved in this matter. Everyone has the same right to privacy. If the information is not linkable online, it's private.
- Do link back to beingthreatened.com so more people can find us!

For all the processes mentioned above, the one question to briefly ask yourself before writing or posting is: Will this help or harm our community image and our effort?