October 05, 2010 | Florian Leppla

Well done BT, now ISPs have to ensure that methods of collecting evidence are tested

Congratulations to BT and Sky for opposing Norwich Pharmacal Orders following the ACS:Leaks.

It's good news that they have learned from the massive data protection breach from ACS:Law and opposed further orders by Gallant Macmillan, as we and others advised.

We are also urging BT and Sky to make sure that the methods of collecting evidence are tested. Rightsholders will then have to disclose their methods before the court.

That will show if they are really that much different from the one's ACS:Law's used, as, for instance, the BPI claims. It will also protected customers from poor monitoring.

In the hearing between BT/Plusnet and Ministry of Sound at the High Court yesterday, BT said that it is seeking a moratorium on all applications for Norwich Pharmacal Orders which would force them to hand over its customers data of alleged copyright infringers.

That's an important development, but what we really need is the ISPs to force the disclosure of the data collection methods. Similarly, in the DEA, Ofcom should also ensure transparency.

The hearing at the High Court was adjourned until 11 January at the request of BT who argued that it needed time to review the system put in place to store customer data before complying with a court order.

After the ACS:Law leak BT and other ISPs are becoming cautious. Data from over 500 Plusnet subscribers was revealed and BT could face charges over the violation of data protection laws, as data was sent unencrypted via email.

There has been great interest in the hearing and a number of ISPs sent their lawyers to observe. Clearly, ISPs are paying great attention and want to know exactly how secure the systems are. Asking for time seems the right approach.

Rightholders are getting ready for the letter writing regime of the Digital Economy Act and it is crucial that their systems are scrutinised.

We have asked Ofcom if they can guarantee that standards of evidence for the DEA are published.

Have you told your MP to ensure the standards of evidence for the Digital Economy Act are fully transparent?

Comments (2)

  1. Jim Killock:
    Oct 07, 2010 at 09:32 AM

    It's very useful to have these links - we'll try to communicate directly with the people affected. I know Privacy International have been in contact with some individuals as well.

    Thank you

  2. Jim Killock:
    Oct 05, 2010 at 04:39 PM

    Can i point out that it was asked of plusnet on there forum on 7th of MAY to request a report from acs:law that in the NPO was a clause imposed on acs to give them within 6 months of the customers details being sent to acs:law

    the report was to give details of 1. how many of plusnets customers had been fined 2. how many was taken to court

    we at PN forum believed strongly that the report would say fine letters sent to all and no one taken to court. which would of proved the NPO orders was not being used in the intention they was issued for

    It is plusnet and the customers on there forum that pushed for the NPO's to be challenged. Plusnet is part of the bt group so on the face of it the reports in paper see bt broadband as the hero's face

    dont believe me then check bt's forum and then plusnets, who cares the most from number of replays in the threads by staff members?



    i am not connected to PN in any other way apart from being a ex customer, my PN username is asbo dog and you will find my sig points the MP email page of open rights

    i just want to see PN getting more of the hero's news right up's as if plusnet was not part of the BT group the bt broadband would of pulled the curtains down just as they did with removing posts on the forum when the phrom issue came out