TRUST IS EVERYTHING - SO IS FEAR
This is an article that was first publishd by Paranoid Times in 2010. The story rages on, with some of those named due to make appearances in court or tribunals early in 2012. Let's hope justice prevails once and for all!
Does anyone in your household download music or movies, or perhaps participate in any sort of file sharing?
If we share a file, are we breaking the law?
Are we in breach of any copyright that may be in place?
For some years, certain money-grabbing law firms have been circulating thousands of template based letters informing individuals of illegal downloads or copyright infringing material detected on their personal computers, usually via such entities as BitTorrent. These letters are stating that there's forensic evidence to back up the claims. These letters also state that, unless the recipient pays a set amount, I believe between £200 and £700, they could find themselves in court.
The name ACS:Law was springing up left, right and centre.
Many people were panicking when these letters arrived and paying what can only be described as blackmailers' fees, even when sure they had never visited such sites.
If you know for a fact that the material has not been shared on your computer, I'd suggest that you DO NOT PAY!
But DO NOT IGNORE the letter. Send a letter of denial by registered post to the law firm. Demand action, request the so-called forensic evidence and inform police of the false accusations. Inform your lawyer and then await a legal court summons, if necessary. If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear. We are, afterall, in the UK. It's a civilised country where law abiding citizens should be protected from becoming the victims of crime. At least, that's what we'd like to think.
But what about Cybercrime?
Law firms mentioned includes ACS Law Solicitors, Davenport Lyons and TBI, but TBI stated that they would no longer be pursuing these letters of claim. At the time, recipients of letters were being asked to email BBC's Watchdog programme.
The particular batch of letters to which I refer seems to have had the personal details requested from bskyb, who were reportedly investigating the case and asking those affected to email them. O2 was doing similar. (see here).
One version of this letter relates to music files, one to games, one to photographs, one to films and, most worryingly, another relates directly to Internet pornography. For many completely innocent people, the combination of threat and fear of being exposed as being even remotely involved with porn is enough to make them cough up hundreds of pounds in the false belief that the problem will go away.
For many more, the thought of legal action when they can barely, if at all, afford to pay the amount specified, is just too much. But how do we know a scam from a well worded, legitimate legal document?
A January 2010 report states that 25,000 IP addresses had been collected from customers of BT, so it would appear that a court order was in force to have those customers' details released. The customer feedback on this page is particularly interesting, as it relates directly to the phase of letters I am writing about here.
Checking with the Law Society apparently shows that the law company in question is real. Checking a website should 'prove' that they are real; the domain name acs-law.org.uk, for example, appeared to be registered to Terence Tsang, ACS Law Solicitors, 18 Hanover Square, London, Greater London, W1S 1HX
A little further research reveals that acs-law.co.uk is registered to SOHO Technology Ltd, 20 Hanover Square London, W1S 1JY
HOWEVER... on researching the address provided, number 18 Hanover Square shows a multitude of options, so it's basically some sort of business centre, by the sounds of things. You could always try to contact Briceamery Capital Ltd (18, Hanover Square, London, W1S 1HX Tel: 020 7993 8151). They may be able to tell you how lucrative ACS:Law would be as an investment. They do offer a link to their opportunities within the Commercial Litigation Fund sector.
In fact, I could actually go and pay to rent my own office & business address at 18, Hanover Square, if the refurbishment has been completed. I believe the details for these Mayfair office addresses were being handled by MERJS Chartered Surveyors, so if anyone wants to call 020 7079 3976 to ask about property reference 1229533, you could let us all know if said lawyers are actually resident within the building.
But that's not getting to the crux of the problem. There are forums galore discussing this very issue. Check out the longstanding ConsumerActionGroup for starters. It instantly shows a different postcode - W1S 1NX - which, in turn, leads to the vicinity of Masons Arms Mews, Maddox Street. It's right next to Hanover Square - very prestigeous addresses.
It's amazing where a search engine trail can lead you!
Back to ACS:Law - read what others have been saying or doing here. Names I stumbled across in 2010 included Andrew Crossley (the only solicitor in the company, allegedly), Terry Tsang, Simon Gallant and Kate Macmillan (possibly the heads of Gallant Macmillan), amongst others.
Speculative invoicing, as opposed to 'blackmailing', is the name of this game, but they still need a source of information. So, how do they get your details in order to send out those nasty 'speculative invoices'?
They track the IP (Internet Protocol) numbers used by our computers. These are provided by our ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and they are, apparently, under legal obligation to disclose our personal details to anyone with the clout to obtain a court summons reqesting them.
Companies such as Virgin Media and Sky are possibly being inundated with requests - many are complying without objection.
How simple is it to trace an individual Internet user on this planet?
According to the details available via Wikipedia, "The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) manages the IP address space allocations globally and cooperates with five regional Internet registries (RIRs) to allocate IP address blocks to local Internet registries (Internet service providers) and other entities." One lord and master with 5 servants:
In 2008, a judge ordered YouTube to give ALL user histories to Viacom. The suit was filed against Google in July 2007. Viacom also requested YouTube's source code. Other sites, like Facebook and Twitter, are mentioned.
Many were upset by the introduction of the RIP Act of 2000, but technology is blazing a trail far beyond what many of us could previously imagine. The power of the microchip has everyone within this fascinating, global network numbered like items on a supermarket shelf. Everything and everyone is traceable as soon as they log on, sign in and start surfing.
It's not paranoia, it's truth. It's hard to contemplate what the next 10 years will bring, far less ponder future science fiction that could, indeed, be science fact.
We're now less afraid of the street criminals but what of cyber criminals? Is giving up our personal privacy the ultimate price we need to pay?
Anyone want to buy my paperback copy of 1984? Or can the sale of secondhand books be classed as copyright infringement? Also, if Intellectual Property Crime is becoming so rife, where do alleged 'mind readers' stand in all this? Aren't your own thoughts yours and yours alone until such times as you choose to disclose them?
This is a work in progress, as frugal research costs time.
You can Discuss this article in the Paranoid Times section of our forum.
http://www.paranoid-times.co.uk/
This is an article that was first publishd by Paranoid Times in 2010. The story rages on, with some of those named due to make appearances in court or tribunals early in 2012. Let's hope justice prevails once and for all!
Does anyone in your household download music or movies, or perhaps participate in any sort of file sharing?
If we share a file, are we breaking the law?
Are we in breach of any copyright that may be in place?
For some years, certain money-grabbing law firms have been circulating thousands of template based letters informing individuals of illegal downloads or copyright infringing material detected on their personal computers, usually via such entities as BitTorrent. These letters are stating that there's forensic evidence to back up the claims. These letters also state that, unless the recipient pays a set amount, I believe between £200 and £700, they could find themselves in court.
The name ACS:Law was springing up left, right and centre.
Many people were panicking when these letters arrived and paying what can only be described as blackmailers' fees, even when sure they had never visited such sites.
If you know for a fact that the material has not been shared on your computer, I'd suggest that you DO NOT PAY!
But DO NOT IGNORE the letter. Send a letter of denial by registered post to the law firm. Demand action, request the so-called forensic evidence and inform police of the false accusations. Inform your lawyer and then await a legal court summons, if necessary. If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear. We are, afterall, in the UK. It's a civilised country where law abiding citizens should be protected from becoming the victims of crime. At least, that's what we'd like to think.
But what about Cybercrime?
Law firms mentioned includes ACS Law Solicitors, Davenport Lyons and TBI, but TBI stated that they would no longer be pursuing these letters of claim. At the time, recipients of letters were being asked to email BBC's Watchdog programme.
The particular batch of letters to which I refer seems to have had the personal details requested from bskyb, who were reportedly investigating the case and asking those affected to email them. O2 was doing similar. (see here).
One version of this letter relates to music files, one to games, one to photographs, one to films and, most worryingly, another relates directly to Internet pornography. For many completely innocent people, the combination of threat and fear of being exposed as being even remotely involved with porn is enough to make them cough up hundreds of pounds in the false belief that the problem will go away.
For many more, the thought of legal action when they can barely, if at all, afford to pay the amount specified, is just too much. But how do we know a scam from a well worded, legitimate legal document?
A January 2010 report states that 25,000 IP addresses had been collected from customers of BT, so it would appear that a court order was in force to have those customers' details released. The customer feedback on this page is particularly interesting, as it relates directly to the phase of letters I am writing about here.
Checking with the Law Society apparently shows that the law company in question is real. Checking a website should 'prove' that they are real; the domain name acs-law.org.uk, for example, appeared to be registered to Terence Tsang, ACS Law Solicitors, 18 Hanover Square, London, Greater London, W1S 1HX
A little further research reveals that acs-law.co.uk is registered to SOHO Technology Ltd, 20 Hanover Square London, W1S 1JY
HOWEVER... on researching the address provided, number 18 Hanover Square shows a multitude of options, so it's basically some sort of business centre, by the sounds of things. You could always try to contact Briceamery Capital Ltd (18, Hanover Square, London, W1S 1HX Tel: 020 7993 8151). They may be able to tell you how lucrative ACS:Law would be as an investment. They do offer a link to their opportunities within the Commercial Litigation Fund sector.
In fact, I could actually go and pay to rent my own office & business address at 18, Hanover Square, if the refurbishment has been completed. I believe the details for these Mayfair office addresses were being handled by MERJS Chartered Surveyors, so if anyone wants to call 020 7079 3976 to ask about property reference 1229533, you could let us all know if said lawyers are actually resident within the building.
But that's not getting to the crux of the problem. There are forums galore discussing this very issue. Check out the longstanding ConsumerActionGroup for starters. It instantly shows a different postcode - W1S 1NX - which, in turn, leads to the vicinity of Masons Arms Mews, Maddox Street. It's right next to Hanover Square - very prestigeous addresses.
It's amazing where a search engine trail can lead you!
Back to ACS:Law - read what others have been saying or doing here. Names I stumbled across in 2010 included Andrew Crossley (the only solicitor in the company, allegedly), Terry Tsang, Simon Gallant and Kate Macmillan (possibly the heads of Gallant Macmillan), amongst others.
Speculative invoicing, as opposed to 'blackmailing', is the name of this game, but they still need a source of information. So, how do they get your details in order to send out those nasty 'speculative invoices'?
They track the IP (Internet Protocol) numbers used by our computers. These are provided by our ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and they are, apparently, under legal obligation to disclose our personal details to anyone with the clout to obtain a court summons reqesting them.
Companies such as Virgin Media and Sky are possibly being inundated with requests - many are complying without objection.
How simple is it to trace an individual Internet user on this planet?
According to the details available via Wikipedia, "The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) manages the IP address space allocations globally and cooperates with five regional Internet registries (RIRs) to allocate IP address blocks to local Internet registries (Internet service providers) and other entities." One lord and master with 5 servants:
- ARIN (Canada, United States, some islands of the Pacific)
- RIPE NCC (Europe, parts of Asia)
- APNIC (Asia, Pacific region)
- LACNIC (Latin America and the Caribbean)
- AfriNIC (Africa)
In 2008, a judge ordered YouTube to give ALL user histories to Viacom. The suit was filed against Google in July 2007. Viacom also requested YouTube's source code. Other sites, like Facebook and Twitter, are mentioned.
Many were upset by the introduction of the RIP Act of 2000, but technology is blazing a trail far beyond what many of us could previously imagine. The power of the microchip has everyone within this fascinating, global network numbered like items on a supermarket shelf. Everything and everyone is traceable as soon as they log on, sign in and start surfing.
It's not paranoia, it's truth. It's hard to contemplate what the next 10 years will bring, far less ponder future science fiction that could, indeed, be science fact.
We're now less afraid of the street criminals but what of cyber criminals? Is giving up our personal privacy the ultimate price we need to pay?
Anyone want to buy my paperback copy of 1984? Or can the sale of secondhand books be classed as copyright infringement? Also, if Intellectual Property Crime is becoming so rife, where do alleged 'mind readers' stand in all this? Aren't your own thoughts yours and yours alone until such times as you choose to disclose them?
This is a work in progress, as frugal research costs time.
You can Discuss this article in the Paranoid Times section of our forum.
http://www.paranoid-times.co.uk/
