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.
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.
Specifically, BT are being investigated by the ICO after it turned out that they sent PlusNet subscriber data to ACS:Law in an unencrypted format; they're also technically in contempt of court as the court order requiring them to hand over said data explicitly required it to be encrypted.
A company that deployed Phorm on its network without telling is users*, who before this data breech wern't even challenging the requests from ACS:Law and a company whose in house legal department were giving out user information unencrypted in violation of the data protection act.
Sounds a great company to show your support to, I'd be more inclined to support Talk Talk or Virgin since they actually fight to keep there customers privacy. BT and Sky are just back peddling so they don't look so bad in the media.
*European Commission has just brought legal charges against the UK government for not prosecuting BT over the privacy invasion that was Phorm.
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.
"Charging reasonable rates to cover costs" will only bring negative reactions from all sides, IMHO.
First, if they are required to produce this information by an order of the court, they may not be able to recover any costs at all.
Second, from what I've read, it seems BT is a favorite target for all kinds of accusations of evilitude. It seems very plausible that an "official" price list will cause some lawyer office to complain that legit requests for information are "blocked" by "overcharging".
Third, publishing a price list for processing information requests "officially" sounds like they're in the business of selling customer data. Such step will certainly leave me, were I a customer, with a severely bad aftertaste, even if the company swears it's only in response of "legitimate" requests.
Finally, and most importantly, even if they can charge some amount for processing such requests, and recover the costs, the unit that will be doing this work isn't going to be a profit center.
I still see only costs and no merits.