Slashdot Mirror


UK Anti-Piracy Firm E-mails Reveal Cavalier Attitude Toward Legal Threats

Khyber writes "A recent DDoS attack against a UK-based anti-pirating firm, ACS:Law, has resulted in a large backup archive of the server contents being made available for download, [and this archive] is now being hosted by the Pirate Bay. Within this archive are e-mails from Andrew Crossley basically admitting that he is running a scam job, sending out thousands of frivolous legal threats on the premise that a percentage pay up immediately to avoid legal hassles."

12 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Wow. by Cryolithic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is this surprising at all? I don't think anyone would be shocked at this...

    1. Re:Wow. by gilesjuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is surprising is that it seems that there is little or no involvement of the police or law enforcement agencies in this.

      What appears to have happened is private companies have been granted permission to sample Internet traffic and this information is then made available to these dubious legal firms who just spam people with demands for payment.

    2. Re:Wow. by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
      No, actually, making false accusations in the hope of obtaining money is extortion. While the threat of legal action is specifically exempt, the threat of public embarrassment (accusing old people of downloading a gay porn video called "Army Fuckers") is not.

      Also, given that they claim to have "forensic computer evidence" when they do not (sorry, a date and time from a server log, without the hard disk in the server being removed to preserve the "evidence", and a proper chain of custody, is not "forensic evidence").

      This is why BritGov is investigating them.

  2. As many suspected. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think many people have long suspected that firms like this were running a 'threaten first, confirm later' policy. After all, there is no penalty for ACS:Law if they mistakenly threaten a non-infringer, so what incentive is there for them to be accurate?

    The submission is a little inaccurate. Crossley didn't admit, even implicitly, to deliberatly running a scam. What he has admitted is that the data upon which ACS sends out it's threatening letters is of poor quality and riddled with inaccuracies so severe even the clients are complaining - but even though he knows that many of those he accuses are innocent, he threatens them anyway because it's faster and cheaper than producing accurate data. Instead, ACS just threatens to sue anyone who criticises this practice for libel. I imagine that works very well, given that the UK arrangement of libel law is quite infamously written in favor of the plaintiff.

  3. Pointless. by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And probably all rendered inadmissible in court because they were obtained illegally. Way to immunise a guy against an awful lot of evidence.

    I know someone who was threatened by ACS:Law. As with all things serious, we researched it and discovered it was likely a scam, and this was WAY before they were news-worthy. The threat was ignored, except for a polite response, and nothing else happened. If you pay up, you're a moron. If you think this will stop such companies, there are no shortage of other morons willing to pick up such easy work, and they don't even need to be anywhere near a lawyer themselves.

    DDOS, hacking, etc. isn't doing anything but legitimising their actions should they go to the mainstream media. Just ignoring their threats and/or inviting them to court, as any sensible person would do (and have done - ACS:Law are under investigation by various high-level UK legal authorities for legal irregularities) does infinitely more.

    The guys an scamming idiot, but it's like a playground fight here - I can guess how much a moron he is without having to break into his personal emails and just because they might reveal he is an asshole doesn't mean that you've "won" anything against anti-piracy lawsuits or even against legal threats with zero evidence. All you've done is become nothing more than a publicity generator. How long before I see on the news: "Pirates hack into law-firm's servers, distribute private emails, law-firm says it's represents the mindset of the people they are chasing".

    1. Re:Pointless. by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In UK law, this would be admissible in the court. Even if the police break the law obtaining evidence, it is still admissible. The punishment for the methods used is, unlike the US, a separate issue from admissibility.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
  4. The DOS did cause leak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a chain of events, which was triggered by the DOS. According to what I read, in the process of countering the DOS, the default home page was briefly moved. This exposed a listing of the root directory, which happened to contain a backup image, which was rapidly grabbed by the DOSers.

  5. ...deliberately does not target TalkTalk or Virgin by bobstay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA: "Email evidence that ACS:Law deliberately does not target two UK ISPs, TalkTalk and Virgin Media"

    That's interesting. I'm with Virgin so that's nice to know. I wonder why these two?

    Perhaps they don't cave as easily as the others.

  6. Re:has resulted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DDoS brought their servers down. They went down in flames so ACS:Law had to reinstall everything and their idiot admin exposed their entire website (mostly tons of confidential information) to the public. I downloaded it myself, the file is called backup-8.24.2010_12-58-28_acslawor and the shit I found in it was very scarry. If it wasn't for the DDoS, we wouldn't have gotten our hands on this file. Go die somewhere and stop posting shit you don't know anything about.

  7. Common strategy by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the same strategy used by police and councils, sending out fines with threats of prosecution for minor motoring offences. Realistically the case is unlikely to go to court, but people pay up anyway because: (1) they want to avoid the months of worry, waiting to find out if they are taken to court or not; (2) often the case would be heard hundred of miles from their home and, even if they win, they can't recover their travel / accommodation expenses; and (3) the court system is notoriously biased against the motorist and appeals are expensive and complicated.

    This isn't as off-topic as you may think. People have been convinced by government / police campaigns that paying the fine is "the done thing". For example, someone driving at 67mph in a 60mph zone may be faced with a £30 fine, but if they let it go to court they risk getting 6 points on their license (halfway to losing it!) and a fine in the thousands.

    This is what the copyright enforcement industry is now trying to achieve: A form of "justice" based on fear. Not fear of a fair punishment for a genuine offence, but fear of being put in to a situation where right or wrong, win or lose, people suffer significant financial loss and a great deal of worry.

  8. Can you hear that? by Torinir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's the sound of the copyright lobby having another heart attack.

    When will the governments of the world finally say "Enough is enough" to these clowns?

    It's not like all this litigation and threats are profitable or anything. I believe /. had an article on the fact that RIAA spent $16m to recover $391,000 in 2008. It was worse in 2007, when they spent $21m and only recovered $516,000. I know it's been all over the place at various points. Add in the frivolous lawsuits, DDoS attacks and harassment of uninvolved individuals, and the whole copyright lobby looks like an organized crime syndicate.

  9. Correct legal terminology by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'd probably send a "fuck off" reply

    Please, if you are replying to a legal letter the correct response is "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram".