Slashdot Mirror
BT Seeks Moratorium On Internet Piracy Cases
myocardialinfarction writes "In the wake of widespread criticism of ACS:Law and its business model, British Telecom has asked for a moratorium on sharing customer's data in cases of alleged illegal file sharing. 'BT lawyers asked for the adjournment, saying that the firm needed to see details of the security system that would be used to store its customers' data before it could comply with any order. ... "We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people."'"
In a matter of months, the practice of harvesting the details of possibly innocent individuals based on accusations generated using unreliable methods will be the norm and sanctioned by law. The Digital Economy Act is all a-drafted by the Rights Holders and assented by Her Majesty, and the Slimiest Lawyers in all Her Kingdom are all a-primed and ready to litigate and make lots of money off the unsuspecting public.
It's gonna be a hoot!
They aren't protecting the customers so much as themselves. Privacy laws in the EU are somewhat more stringent than elsewhere, and can probably backfire in more egregious cases of abuse.
Also, there are the costs of frivolous requests -- it is not difficult to compile a list of IP addresses and send it around asking for more information -- more so if that's your business and you're getting paid for it.
If, however, you're on the receiving end of many such requests, to you that is obviously all cost and no merit.
I think it is interesting to look at this from a slightly different angle though -- maybe future laws regarding policing copyright violations should be structured in such way that it is costly to both fire frivolous requests, and ignore legitimate complaints.
This would be one more good issue to bring to legislative campaigns on the topic, and help turn the tide, which at the moment seems to be one of presumption of guilt and trying to drive everyone into settlement, violation or no.
Quoth Bill Maher:
It's not heroic to 'beat' cancer or prevail in any other endeavour where your motivation is totally saving or advancing your own ass.
If Bill had a nice dose of cancer and subsequent lengthy chemotherapy and radiation treatments my guess is he'd be singing a different tune if he survived, which is doubtful, because he'd probably prefer to just lay down and die instead.
The UK data protection act states that your customer's details must be kept secure. If they aren't there are, possibly significant, legal penalties.
A company giving personal details to an organisation that's been PUBLICLY shown to have piss poor security is a recipe for losing court cases, big time.
Sending the list by unencrypted email was just stupid, but generally doesn't result in a real security breach because like the "purloined letter" the gems are swamped in junk. Nevertheless high profile targets (like ACS law and possibly BT) need to be much more careful. Having a policy of sending or accepting such data by email is another matter, however.
This is the same BT whose PlusNet subsidiary e-mailed 400 customers personal details to ACS:Law in an unencrypted spreadsheet, and as such, who are themselves now under investigation for breach of the data protection act through not securely handling personal data.
This isn't about BT protecting customers, this is about BT trying to look good for the information commissioner when he comes knocking to see what the fuck they were playing at so that he can consider what sanctions/punishment to enforce against the company.
They could charge reasonable fees for rendering the requested information. They could probably charge enough to make a small profit.
I think in the present case they are actually just sick and tired of being forced to provide evidence against their own customer and to handle all of the fishing expeditions launched rights holders.
Sure the moratorium man save the some money. But I suspect they are just fed up with it.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
There has recently been an orchestration of events surrounding existing anti-filesharing methods, and the purpose is simple: to bring on the Digital Economy Act.
Chief Master Winegarten, the judge who has been issuing all the Norwich Pharmacal orders requiring ISPs to release data, has suddenly become critical of ACS:Law. ISP user data has and confidential e-mails have appeared on a web server. Large ISPs which have complied summarily with ACS - i.e. the ones with government contracts more valuable than any collection of attentive geeks' custom - are now raising public objections.
You can not trust a company to do the morally right thing just as you cannot trust a stranger to do the right thing. There has to be laws that make sure that it is more profitable for the companies to behave than to screw people over.
Isn't Time Warner a member of both the RIAA and the MPAA? I seem to remember hearing about a Warner film studio and a Warner record label....
I suggest that Time Warner are only interested in obstructing access to user data for other content owners. That's what the judgment does: it's anti-competitive.
I insisted on sending our accounts databases to the consultants working for our new business owners as Axcrypted files on DVDs, plus I required them to sign a Non-disclosure Agreement and told them I would pass on the encryption key via SMS text to the IT Manager in Head Office. I was told this was all 'over the top' and I was being awkward. Hey ho.
AT&ROFLMAO