Read more.Worker reportedly quit as firm continued to target innocent victims.
Read more.Worker reportedly quit as firm continued to target innocent victims.
Leagally threatening people is one thing... but THIS...... if true.... Well, whoever is the practicing lawyer/soliciter should have their license revoked. Very underhand.
Former employee said: "Some people will be tempted to pay, regardless of whether they think they have actually done anything, simply because of the desire to avoid embarrassment.
Judge reportedly said: "Some people will be tempted to pay, regardless of whether they think they have actually done anything, simply because of the desire to avoid embarrassment
A typo, a coincidence that they started with identical statements or did they have the same script?
![]()
Actually there is a legal reason for it, morally it might well be questionable but legally I seem to remember that if someone accesses your wireless to commit an illegal you can be held jointly accountable.
Same applies to if you use the internet at work to do something illegal, your work place will share a joint legal responsibility.
EDIT it also shows they don't care about the actual issues of copyright and piracy just about making money.
Last edited by Pob255; 15-02-2011 at 03:46 PM.
[rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/Spork/project_spork.jpg[rem /IMG] [rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/dichotomy/dichotomy_footer_zps1c040519.jpg[rem /IMG]
Pob's new mod, Soviet Pob Propaganda style Laptop.
"Are you suggesting that I can't punch an entire dimension into submission?" - Flying squirrel - The Red Panda Adventures
Sorry photobucket links broken
Last edited by MonkeyL; 15-02-2011 at 04:18 PM.
Oh, it's far less clear than that. In relation to the work stuff, yeah, the case may well be made, certainly in some types of civil matters, that the company is liable. Examples would be defamation. But significant in that would be company policies on employee use of the internet, and what steps they'd take, to prevent such abuses, such as staff training and, in some cases, monitoring (though that latter opens up another whole can of legal worms for the employer).
But, MonkeyL raises a good point, that being the intent required for offences that aren't strict liability offences. And it also raises issues like the "common carrier" defence, referred to in the EU E-Commerce directive as the "mere conduit" situation.
Having said that, anyone operating an open and unsecured WiFi connection, unless they deliberately and explicitly intend to do so, perhaps for social purposes, is either ignorant of the implications for their own security of doing so, or is a muppet if they know of those implications and still don't secure it.
And, of course, that's far from uncommon. Several years ago, I scared the poop out of a friend with an unsecured wifi router by showing him some printed information he was shocked I could see. Needless to say, his router was secured about 2 minutes later, which was the point of the exercise. He got the message, loud and clear, especially when I offered to lock him out of his own router from my laptop, and from outside his home, and asked how how he'd explain it to the authorities if someone sat down the road in their car downloading child porn via his net connection. And how long he might sit under arrest in a police cell on child porn charges before he convinced them he knew nothing about it.
And what that investigation, and what the arrest much less any charges that might result might do to his career as a computer security manager.
And no, I'm not kidding about that last bit, on his occupation.
capt_cornflake (15-02-2011),jackvdbuk (16-02-2011)
Just to add to what others have said, that was just one of the issues that the judge raised when considering the applications for default judgment ACS Law / Crossley made. iirc the judge at that time made the point that there was no settled law in England about it. Hang on, google will help my memory... Here we go:
In the final hearing, he went on to say:Originally Posted by HHJ Birss QC
Reading the final judgment in the case, the Judge was so unhappy with the whole letter writing scheme, he was seriously considering ordering that no further letters demanding money could be written unless and until a test case was properly dealt with and issues about e.g. unsecured wireless connections or problems relying on IP addresses were dealt with properly. It seems he only gave up on that because Media CAT and ACS Law went out of business. The Judge made it clear that he thinks there should be a condition like that imposed before any other ISP's give up customer details based on IP addresses.Originally Posted by HHJ Birss QC
Just in case anyone else is as sad as me, the various judgments are here:
Original Default judgment issue: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html
further judgment when the judge took it upon himself to find all the other MediaCAT / ACS law claims and order a directions hearing to consider all of them together: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/18.html
Final hearing: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html
Well investigation comes rather late. Surely ACS Law should be pursued for their criminal actions. How can they make hundreds of thousands off innocent victims and get away without an repercussions?
The problem with all of this for me to destroys my "encryption" argument. I used to say using public key encryption for all sites to protect your credit card details was using the wrong solution to fix the wrong problem (point being you care if you nearest and dearing know your downloading porn however some in oz you never heard of or will meet is less of a problem, however making sure others cannot use your CC details is prime importance). Now we seem to have blackmailers everywhere, using a "legal" pretence.
(\__/) All I wanted in the end was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend. - NMA
(='.*=)
(")_(*)
I disagree, people know full well how to operate a front door locking mechanism, the internet is for some MUCH more complicated and when people, if they bother at all try to "secure"
their net, or cannot connect to thier router when secured, they will usually just leave it open.. after all its simpler that way rather than spending possibly hours working out how to connect, or change settings to make the bloody thing work!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)