|
|
mart021
new user
Reg'd: Tue
Posts: 1
|
|
It would have been wrong for Tiscali to pass on details of their customers who download because they would be breaking the Data Protection Act so I'm glad they have said no.
|
|
Madeline
regular
Reg'd: Wed
Posts: 14628
Loc: Wales
|
|
I think they were right to refuse and that's how I voted. By the way, I think you should be able to choose 1 voting option, not 2!
Web User article
Madeline. 
--------------------
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton, 1887.
|
wildthing666
regular
Reg'd: Fri
Posts: 3827
Loc: Micklefield Leeds
|
|
I also chose that they were right big companies always use it when an individual asks for info so it is about time it was used for the benefit of the little guy. 
--------------------
Carers voices
carers poverty protest
|
rayinski
regular
Reg'd: Sat
Posts: 198
|
|
if tiscali had given the info without a court order then they would have broken the law and so would find themselves in very hot water. however they should contact the customers concerned and if they are not happy with the response/excuse given, close down that customers account
|
FifeFlyer
regular
Reg'd: Thu
Posts: 3845
Loc: Fife
|
|
Quote:
however they should contact the customers concerned and if they are not happy with the response/excuse given, close down that customers account
What gives an internet provider the right to dictate what you use your pc for
? If you are doing anything illegal then that is surely a police matter.
|
rayinski
regular
Reg'd: Sat
Posts: 198
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
however they should contact the customers concerned and if they are not happy with the response/excuse given, close down that customers account
What gives an internet provider the right to dictate what you use your pc for
? If you are doing anything illegal then that is surely a police matter.
what i mean is, they contact the customer and tell them that it has been alleged that theyr'e i.p. has been logged as bieng used to distribute material that is subject to copyright and then make a decision then.
as for what you do with your pc most isp's have a "fair use policy" especially on uncapped packages
|
FifeFlyer
regular
Reg'd: Thu
Posts: 3845
Loc: Fife
|
|
Quote:
what i mean is
Yes i see what you're saying .
Here's how it works : the BPI doesn't know the names and addresses of ALLEGED file sharers but they say by using the targeted file-sharing networks they can get the IP addresses for accounts being used at any specific time.
Now as we know these addresses change depending on when you log on to the net but your ISP can identify an IP address if given a time and date when it was used. This is why the BPI want the Internet service providers to intervene.
Now the BPI also say that if they are monitoring a SUSPECTED file sharer , and one of these IP addresses downloads the same file , then that is proof that a crime is being committed.
To me it's all allegations and suspicions with absolutely no proof. So do you think that is grounds for contacting your customer. I certainly don't.
A great British tradition.........innocent until proved guilty.
|
greysts
regular
Reg'd: Thu
Posts: 17961
Loc: Colchester
|
|
On the other hand....
Your ISP knows that they have a file sharer on their network. That activity has been defined as illegal by the British courts. Should they not declare to the appropriate authority (police BPI or whatever) that they believe there network is being used for illegal activities. It is then up to the prosecuting authority to try and prove their case in open court.
If you walk down the street and see what you believe to be a drug pusher selling his wares do you just walk by and ignore it or do you report it to the police. I fully accept that the degree of criminality is entirely different but surely the principal remains the same?
--------------------
Do you know that we're all in line for succession to the throne? Really?
Well, if forty-eight million, two hundred thousand, seven hundred and one people died I'd be Queen.
|
FifeFlyer
regular
Reg'd: Thu
Posts: 3845
Loc: Fife
|
|
Hi greysts i was waiting on your input as i know from previous discussions you have strong views on this subject.
I think however , that no amount of discussion would cause either of us to waver to the others point of view. I do respect your thoughts , but don't relish the thought getting writers cramp so would say it's probably best that we agree to disagree.
|
krsipy1812
new user
Reg'd: Sat
Posts: 9
|
|
Quote:
On the other hand....
Your ISP knows that they have a file sharer on their network. That activity has been defined as illegal by the British courts. Should they not declare to the appropriate authority (police BPI or whatever) that they believe there network is being used for illegal activities. It is then up to the prosecuting authority to try and prove their case in open court.
If you walk down the street and see what you believe to be a drug pusher selling his wares do you just walk by and ignore it or do you report it to the police. I fully accept that the degree of criminality is entirely different but surely the principal remains the same?
The ISP does not 'know' beyond doubt that any crime has been committed as all we read is about 'allegations. There has been no facts established under the acceptable legal standard of proof. ISP's are not responsible for policing the internet and owe a duty to their customers both under their contractual obligations to provide them a free and uninterrupted service, and they have statutory duty under the Data Protection Act. The proper legal remedy would be for the other side to go to the courts and seek a court order. The ISP is perfectly entitled to stand their ground without the court order. The reason they do not appear to have done so, is because they may noy have the required amount of proof that the court would require.
The situation is quite different in the US because of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) which would require the ISP to take some kind of action otherwise, if they allegations proved true, they could be sued for damages for failing to take action when notified.
However, this is not the case in the UK, but these large organistions are trying to use muscle on the back of the DMCA, which would be fine if this is america, but it's not.
|
greysts
regular
Reg'd: Thu
Posts: 17961
Loc: Colchester
|
|
So you tell me - is the act of downloading a copyrighted piece of software without the owners permission an illegal act in the UK or not? And if the ISP knowingly allows that illegal act is he guilty of condoning a crime?
--------------------
Do you know that we're all in line for succession to the throne? Really?
Well, if forty-eight million, two hundred thousand, seven hundred and one people died I'd be Queen.
|
Jonny555
Reg'd: Fri
Posts: 5329
Loc: Cheshire, England
|
|
You've got a perfectly valid point Greysts, but unless the ISP is actually monitoring the activity on a specific account they would never know. I do however, agree that the ISP must abide by the Data Protection Act and that a court order must be obtained before any account holders details are released.
The policing of the Internet is not the responsibility of ISP's. If it was, then all our subscription costs would go up as a result.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
