TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case

Last year when thousands of Internet users had their privacy breached due to the actions of ACS:Law, watchdog Privacy International said it would pursue the anti-piracy law firm for breaching the Data Protection Act. Now, in PI’s 2010 report, there is a suggestion that BSkyB “contaminated” subscriber information it sent to ACS:Law, which led to someone being accused of piracy who had no broadband account with BSkyB.

In September last year, the email archives of ACS:Law, the UK law firm which pursued thousands of Internet users for alleged breaches of copyright on file-sharing networks, were spilled onto the Internet. In addition to the inner workings of ACS:Law being laid bare, many thousands of Internet subscribers accused by the company had their names, addresses and accusations of sharing pornography revealed too.

Surveillance and privacy watchdog Privacy International (PI) immediately notified the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of this event in the belief that ACS:Law had breached the Data Protection Act with its mishandling of data handed to it by Internet service providers including BSkyB and BT.

In late December 2010, PI released their annual activity report and tucked away on page 23 is the following text which confirms their earlier announcement that they would pursue ACS:Law.

Commenced exploratory proceedings for legal action against law firms involved in file sharing prosecutions. Filed official complaint with ICO regarding the ACS:Law data breach and receiving complaints from individuals who were victims of the breach.

However, it is followed by another interesting statement, this time involving BSkyB.

Wrote statement of claim for an injunction against NPO [Norwich Pharamacal (disclosure) Orders] data after discovering BSkyB had contaminated data they sent to ACS:Law, currently working with barristers to file for injunction in the high court.

For legal reasons Privacy International declined to comment further, but information obtained by TorrentFreak outlines the basis for PI’s concerns surrounding the data supplied to ACS:Law by BSkyB.

The claim is that following the ACS:Law leak, an individual contacted PI explaining that their details had been leaked onto the Internet as part of the breach. Furthermore, ACS:Law had sent a letter with allegations of infringement of copyright on a pornographic movie with the usual offer to settle for cash. This letter was followed by a second, both of which asked for £495 to make the matter go away.

But there seems to have been a problem. Although its alleged that the person being accused had previously been a broadband subscriber with BSkyB, its claimed that the individual’s Internet subscription was terminated in 2007, some two years before the date of the alleged infringement.

The individual being accused by ACS:Law had, however, remained a customer of BSkyB but not for broadband Internet services. At the time of the alleged infringement the individual was a satellite TV subscriber with BSkyB, but a broadband customer of another supplier, BT.

This week TorrentFreak pointed out the Privacy International report to BSkyB along with an outline of the allegations and gave the company the opportunity to respond.

“Neither the customer nor Privacy International have formally contacted Sky to provide evidence of this alleged incident or to complain about our handling of their data. However, we have contacted PI to request more information. In the meantime, and in light of no substantive information or evidence, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on this allegation,” a Sky spokesperson told us.

Quite how far direct discussions between Privacy International and BSkyB can go on this matter remains to be seen. The Sky subscriber at the center of the claims has asked PI not to disclose their details to a 3rd party and PI are still investigating legal action through the High Court against BSkyB.

PI have, however, been in touch with Sky to say that the customer did indeed lodge a complaint via the company’s customer support center.

“I will say that if you check your support logs you should be able to find more information as the victim contacted your support team directly to explain that you had passed on their details to ACS:Law despite them not being a Sky Broadband subscriber – however, your support team refused to discuss the matter with the victim,” Privacy International’s Alexander Hanff wrote to the company today.

For their part, Sky feel that all necessary precautions have been taken.

“Sky makes every effort to ensure it provides accurate information when complying with Court Orders. It does this by carrying out a number of checks against the IP session reported within the Order. If there’s any degree of uncertainty, the details are not supplied.”

For the countless individuals who believe that they have been wrongly accused by ACS:Law, this case will certainly be one to watch.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Trollface.jpg

    Problem Andrew Crossley?

  • Pingback: Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case | Systema

  • Anonymous

    wow tf really does work very hard. filesharefreak hasn’t put an article out in 2-3 months

  • Pingback: Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case - Torrent Invites - Get your free private torrent tracker invites!

  • lolz

    wow, money makes people such scumbags. its always the ones with the MOST money that are the most scummy about it too. not that anyone should be forced to “spread the wealth”. u earn ur money, u keep it. but this whole mafiaa business plan, and in fact many businesses work this way, of DESTROYING any and all competition, in the most ruthless ways, is evil, and should be illegal. just as i, as a good person, dont expect u to give up ur hard earned money on welfare or other entitlements, i also dont expect u to destroy other peoples livelihoods. please stop hurting people for monetary gain mafiaa!

  • Violated

    No surprise here when the system is flawed.

    Then they expect to run a 3 strikes infringement system on this with optional forced disconnection.

    Then remember over half of all subscribers will be clueless about the claim made. Innocent until proven guilty.

  • Bob

    How the hell can you make every effort when you have supplied someones details who could not have possibly had an ip address. I think one of the checks should be does the person actually have broadband ffs

  • GODLiKE

    How can you screw it up so badly? I mean, if you are given an IP address, you HAVE to be given a time frame too. And what kind of a human-made aberration that deems to call itself a system can associate an IP address in a certain time frame with a non-subscriber? Do they look up random names on the database next door?

  • Anonymous

    Money = corruption = complacency = eventual failure to people who actually give a shit.

  • johnson

    who can say that the person to whom the IP address/broadband account is registered was actually using the internet at that time anyway? was someone from his/any ISP company looking over his shoulder? this whole business about ‘you are the account holder, it must have been you using it’ is not only a load of horse s**t, but also the quickest way to falsely accuse (of worse) an individual. just because it is the easiest way of getting money from someone, without supplying definitive proof of wrong doing, for the entertainment industries, courts and governments are condoning the process. sooner or later it will back fire big time!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Claim: ISP Identified Non-Subscriber In Troubled File-Sharing Case | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com

  • Vince Cable

    From what I heard PI have a Whistleblower who works for Sky and told them about the contaminated data but he’s been slapped by gagging order by Sky’s lawyers. Until they can get that lifted their hands are tied.

    Also, Sky have been writing to people accused by ACS Law asking for all their correspondence with ACS Law. Now why would they be doing that unless they are trying to cover their asses?

    And lastly, don’t forget Sky News were the only big UK Media outlet to ignore the ACS Data breach? Now why again would they ignore a big story like?

    Something is rotten in the state of Murdoch.

  • 5318008

    EPIC LULZ

  • coolfaec.jpg

    problem crossley lol!

  • Peng Reets

    Wow, thatss downright messed up when you think about it dude.

    anon-tools.it.tc

  • Alexander Hanff

    Re: Vince Cable
    WTF are you talking about? What you typed is complete fabrication – I dealt with the ACS:Law issue at PI and I can assure everyone that what Vince Cable wrote is simply untrue and I have no idea why he would type such a thing.

    We received a complaint from a victim of the ACS:Law data breach as outlined in the story above – they were not a Sky employee and are not under a gag order.

    Seriously, sometimes I wonder why I bother doing the work I do.

  • Pingback: Biggest Ever BitTorrent Piracy Settlement is Intriguing | PornDL News

  • Wanker Crossley

    #1

    Yeah.. Life’s a bitch and then you die

  • Gavin

    This proves how unreliable a IP address is, when trying to convict some one of a crime.

  • ACS Lose

    Vince Cable is an interesting nom de plume, for all the non-UK members of Torrenkfreak he is a British MP who nearly lost his job after saying he was going after BSkyB – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/21/vince-cable-war-murdoch-gaffe

    I assume it’s just a troll with a anti BSkyB agenda using an ironic username who doesn’t care about dragging Privacy International’s good name into the mud while he does it.

    It’s true about the last thing Vince wrote though, from what I remember Sky News never mentioned the ACS “hack” but BBC News, their biggest rival ran with it, both on air and on their website.

  • Anonymous

    I read Vince cables post as an attempt to undermine privacy international more than sky.

  • Arthur Jensen

    @Vince Cable
    You are aware that informing sheeple of gagging orders is illegal in itself?

  • Pingback: Biggest Ever BitTorrent Piracy Settlement is Intriguing | binnews.com

  • Pingback: Pirate Party Slams Anti-Piracy Outfit for Filing ‘Illegal’ Complaints | binnews.com

  • Ninja

    lol.. Major fail huh? Talk about setting precedents…

  • Anonymous

    @18, I think revealing that a gagging order exists and who the interested parties are is fine if you don’t go into too much detail. I think you are confusing Gagging Order with the new so called Super-Injunctions which Football Players in the UK use when they are shagging someone behind their wife’s back.

  • Alexander Hanff

    Re: Post #20

    Doesn’t alter the fact that Vince Cable’s post was a complete fabrication though.

  • flock

    I am really sorry, but PI is a complete joke…. over the past years I have heard them saying that they would take this or that company to court on a number of occasions…. They put out numerous media statements saying they would sue Phorm, never happened.

    The reality is that apart from putting out the odd media statement they do not work on p2p/ACS law.

    They just get media hits on the back of other people’s work. The ICO would have investigated ACS Law in any case, PI phone call or not.

    Apart from various, ever changing interns and volunteers who gravitate around PI, and the odd media statement, they practically don’t exist.

    The reality is that non of the people who have been accused by ACS law can count on PI for help.

    Certainly, PI is nowhere to be seen when it comes to helping the 25+ individuals who have been dragged in front of the Patents County Court and have their hearing on the 17th. And they were nowhere to be seen when GM tried to force ISPs to hand over details regarding Ministry of Sound.

    This is not even a story, everybody knows that there is a high margin of error when it comes to ISPs matching IP addresses to customer details. Has happened before, and will happen again. The system was designed for billing, and a high margin of error is accepted.

  • Alexander Hanff

    Re: Flock

    a: PI never said they would sue Phorm, in fact PI did nothing regarding Phorm because they didn’t have anyone on staff to deal with commercial interception. They brought me on board specifically to deal with comms issues.

    If you still believe PI did say they would sue Phorm please do post a reference to the “numerous media statements” you claim we made.

    b: ACS:Law – I spent well over a month working on the ACS:Law issue every single day. I received literally hundreds of emails from victims of the ACS:Law Data Breach and had discussions with over a dozen barristers regarding legal action. The only reason we were unable to take action is because the one good witness we had withdrew their co-operation on the advice of their solicitor so they could pursue a private civil suit.

    I even offered upto 6k of my own money to pay for a barrister to file for an injunction in the High Court. Enigmax has a copy of the statement of claim I prepared for the injunction.

    c: With regards the patents court – there is nothing we can do about that. We are not a P2P defence organisation, we are a privacy organisation. We got involved in the ACS:Law situation because there was a clear breach of the DPA when ACS:Law leaked their email archive. We do not have any power to over rule courts or court orders – neither does anyone else.

    d: We practically don’t exist? We have been defending privacy for almost 21 years across the world. In the 20 months I have worked for PI I have spoken at dozens of conferences, lobbied dozens of politicians, written an array of government consultation papers, ran multiple campaigns, given hundreds of press/media interviews, filed multiple legal complaints and continue to do so. Other than a European Commission funded project which I have been working on for the past 9 months, I have never been paid for any of that work. PI staff do not draw a salary, all our funding goes directly to specific projects. And for the record, the one project I do get paid for pays me < 1K per month.

    So I ask you, how many years of your life have you dedicated to defending civil rights 70+ hours a week, 52 weeks a year for no pay? I suspect the answer is 0.

    So before you start insulting those of us who have dedicated our lives to protecting YOUR rights, for zero reward and very little thanks, perhaps you should lead by example eh?

    Now, despite your diatribe, I will continue to do my work because even though there are ungrateful, sanctimonious pricks like you out there, I believe in the work I do and won't let your hypocrisy deter me.

    And for the record, this is my personal response, not an official PI statement.

  • 5318008

    Peng Reets or whatever, STFU and die already for being the spamming bastard you are.

  • flock
  • Anonymous

    Excellent article TF. Many thanks to you, PI and Mr Hanff because it’s precisely this type of material that should be sent to the real Vince Cable at the UK’s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (ie BIS) because he is the Secretary of State who has to consider whether certain aspects of the inept Digital Economy Act (ie DEA) can go into force (and then Regulations formulated to give it teeth).

    That process of consideration is, as far I’m aware, still ongoing and we need to bombard Mr Cable’s office with evidence that privacy is at serious risk, as well as all the other elements he needs to consider in terms of sections 17 and 18 of DEA.

    So if you UK guys have nothing else to say about the DEA, you can at least copy this TF article and its url and send it to BIS asking they reconsider the unfair assumption that people will be assumed GUILTY until they can somehow prove their innocence.

    You can contact BIS here
    http://www.bis.gov.uk/contact
    Click on Dr Vince Cable MP

  • rob8urcakes

    Oops I posted that comment to contact Vince Cable as an Anon. But it’s me.
    Sorry about that.

  • Alexander Hanff

    re: Flock (again)

    PI did not get paid by Phorm & I suggest you refrain from your libelous comments. It was an entirely different company that did Phorm’s PIA.

    And for the record, I ran the campaign against Phorm for the better part of 2 years. I filed the criminal prosecution against Phorm and continue to push the CPS for a criminal prosecution.

    Seems to me that you are just a sad and bitter individual, perhaps jealous because some of us have the integrity to stick to our principles against all odds and you don’t have the moral stamina to do so.

    I will not respond further to your pathetic whimpers.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.