ISP's releasing personal information - re Davenport Lyons

[gecko1001]

First before I continue with my post, here is the background to the case and how they get ISP's to cough up personal information on its customers.

My wife is one of those falsey accused and she there was letters goign to and throw from March last year until April, then it stopped until this week when they sent another letter now asking for £525 instead of £325 with another undetaking form attached, we had edited the last two and sent them back with no money and also this latest letter had a blank judgment document attached which is supposed to have been used by them in a successfull case, which looking at the form, seems this is just anothre rouse to get people to give into to their intimidation of innocent people.

Swarm of file sharers spurred UK crackdown | The Register

Slyck.com • View topic - legal action for downloading Dream Pinball 3D

Note there are other articles and thread at these locations which cover the subject further as Davenport Lyons is still doing the same unchallenged by anyone.

Anyway I think now the best way to stop Davenport Lyons is to challenge the way they get the information from ISP's via a court order which is granted on information from Logistep, a swedish company, which uses methods to collect information on IP numbers etc, which has no sound metjod, i.e anyone can get an IP address and produce such evidence as they have produced. The worrying thing is because this is a civil case, innocent until proven guilty does not apply as if it went to court, its goign to be Joe Bloggs who cannot afford a solicitor taking on a legal firm who will manipulate evidence that no doubt will blind a court into thinking Davenport Lyons and Logistep have sound evidence.

So since ISP are realising private information how does one stop them and what laws can one use in the consumer side of things, data protection etc.

I have come here by the way as someone so my post on this subject in a local newsgroup and suggested I post here ina ddition to other sites I have asked this question on.

[Lula]

I am afraid that I have absolutely no knowledge on this sort of stuff before, but if you just go out and buy the software, does this not stuff their case? £350 is a bit steep, but it is for loss isnt it? If you bought the game then there would be no loss.

[gecko1001]

Well if one has not done as they say, why would I buy something which I do not want and which is immaterial really as the false charges are that someone in our household has been sharing something which is not the case.

[electron99]

Gecko.In many respects you can draw an analogy with the registered owner of a car receiving a parking 'fine'. All you have to do is write back and say more than one person uses your computer, and you are not aware of anyone downloading this game, so unless they can identify the particular person involved, you are unable to help. If they write back saying you HAVE to say who the culprit was, reply asking where in law you are required to do this.
If you post any correspondence received on this forum, I am sure there will many people able to help you with the replies.

[woad]

As posted many times, do not ignore the letters. However, using the templates on here and at penaltycharges dot co dot uk, contest the claim under CPA rules; ie gather all the evidence they claim to have against you.

Once you have this, you can start to mount your defence.

[AUKUser]

I've just got one of these letters last week, even more to cheek of it, I already owned the game in question before the date given.

I've had a quick loko around, wondering what to do, starting to think it may be best to contact to state this fact, and request exactly what evidence that would link to me specifically they have?

what is CPA referring to?, just trying to figure best approach to contact with.

[Conniff]

When you use P2P, (or any site on the net), your ip can be seen by those you are downloading from. If they put their game on P2P and you download it, they have your ip address. That ip address is unique to you and will tell them the ISP and the UBR that you are connected to. All they then have to do is ask the ISP who owns ip address xxx.xxx.xx.xxx, it's as simple as that.

I don't know how they get around the legal side of a foreign company demanding payment in a country where they have no legal jurisdiction, or how they have managed to get the ISP to give this information.

Are these damands coming from a UK lawyer?

Besides all that, how can they demand such a large amount. I could see how the record companies can make up stupid figures by assuming if you downloaded one record, you probably dowloaded dozens.
With a game, you only download one thing and surely they can only ask at most the retail price of that one game.

Unless this is a scam as you both deny ever downloading it.

If this was me, then I would ask my ISP if they have given this information to anyone or S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) them and get the info that way. £10 has to be better than £350.

I think this a hope we get someone to respond letter.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[Michael Browne]

More here:
p2pnet news » Blog Archive » Davenport Lyons, Zuxxez saga

[Conniff]

That is a great read Mike.

This seems to be on a par with the debt collection agencies multi mailing in the hope that someone with a debt will reply.

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

[colcustard]

Hi, I too have had a letter like this.

We had a card come from Royal Mail, it wasn't addressed to Mr or Mrs, my mom thought it was hers and had to pay £1.66 to get the letter to find out it was addressed to me from Davenport Lyons.

This just adds insult to injury!

They are expecting £505 for something I have no knowledge of.
I'm not sure on what to do? We have a wireless network and have for a long time now, and had no knowledge of this happening, I've done all I can as far as encrypting the network is concerned but even then it's not anywhere near 100% secure.

Where do I stand? I can't afford to pay that sort of money.

[woad]

They cannot prove it was *you* simply by an IP address. If they tried a criminal court it would fails The Laws Test (unsufficient evidence and would be contradicted).

A civil case would rest on balance of probabillity, but a good solicitor would rip their case to shreds.

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by Michael Browne

More here:
p2pnet news » Blog Archive » Davenport Lyons, Zuxxez saga

I have just read the above link and there is NO requirement for you, or for anyone, to have a firewall and antivirus or to encrypt your wireless router. It is 'advisable' to have security, so their demand that documentation is supplied to prove you have it and it is set up correctly is just rubbish.

The amount demanded is also bunk, they will have to prove, not just guess, that this is how much having it on your pc has cost them, in other words if the game cost £40 and they want £500, they need to show that 12 people have downloaded it from you and only you.

If you are one of the ones who has never heard of this game and are not a game player, then you are in a better position to challenge them than someone who has, and your information could be very useful to other.

Also, if it is themselves who have put it into the P2P for download in the hope of catching someone ie 'had lured the accused into committing an act', then it is my belief that they have offered it for download free of charge.

[locutus]

An ex workmate of mine (who I am unfortuantly no longer in contact with) had a similar issue, and it turned out to be due (we think) to his wireless internet having no security. He basicly replied that this was the case and he has now set up his wireless settings on his router properly and he got nothing more from them. (I dunno if its the same outfit... sounds like a similar thing tho!)

[woad]

You could contact your ISP, and ask why they released your data to a third party, and on what grounds. Await their reply before proceeding.

if it is along the lines of "company xyz /said/ you had infringed copyright [or downloaded/shared this software]" or "provided evidence that..." ask for a copy of the correspondence alleging/demonstrating this. I'm wondering on what grounds ISPs *are* releasing personal data. Would be interesting to see.

	Subject Access Request A Subject Access Request is a demand which you can make to any organisation to disclose any personal information which they hold on you. The right to disclosure of data is provided by the Data Protection Act. There is no time limit. The organisation is obliged to reveal everything they have about you - which you ask for - as far back as you ask for. There are very few exceptions. It does not matter whether the data is held on microfiche, in an archive, on tape, in a cardex system, in sound recordings or in screen notes. Some companies are saying that they do not have to disclose where it would be difficult to do so - "disproportionate effort". This is untrue. Disproportionate effort refers to something else under the Act. If you are seeking bank charges information then you should ask for "all data held on you" and you should make it clear that you want everything as far back as it goes. Do not be put off by excuses. Do not accept being fobbed off. It is not in your bank's interest to make full disclosure to you. This means that it is in your interests to get it. If you have not started gathering your bank charges information yet, then you should start now. There will soon be a big rush once the OFT test case has been settled. Get all of your bank account informtion as far back as possible. At least as far back as 1995. If your bank says that they don't keep data as far back as this, don't accept it. Be persistent. They've got what you need in some form or other.

[pendle wizard]

hi i have had a letter from davenport lyons also can any reccomend where i can get legal advice or help resolving this matter (uk)

[woad]

Do NOT reply to it, and most certainly do not give them the information they are asking for.

[pendle wizard]

hi m8 thanks 4 reply ( do not reply) bit worring though, was looking for a suggested solictor or whatever

[forgottenone]

Edited.

[hamish2008]

Originally Posted by Conniff

When you use P2P, (or any site on the net), your ip can be seen by those you are downloading from. If they put their game on P2P and you download it, they have your ip address. That ip address is unique to you and will tell them the ISP and the UBR that you are connected to. All they then have to do is ask the ISP who owns ip address xxx.xxx.xx.xxx, it's as simple as that.

not quite as simple. You have an IP allocated by a DHCP server that gives you an IP for a set amount of time. You're IP will change over time so the company in question would need to ask who has a particular IP at a particular moment in time. And it is only unique in the sense that the actual IP is unique. Obviously a comany such as NTL will buy a finite block of IPs and each one will be assigned to different people over the period of it's life. it's absolutely essential that they isolate a particular period of time and that that period of time was the time that the IP was leased to you.

And surely they need to prove you are in posession of this game and indeed used it. If they put their own game on P2P and someone downloaded it is that not entrapment ? I'd love for soemone the challenge these companies ..

[Conniff]

I understand all that hamish but didn't go that far into is as it will just over complicate things, but you are right except for those with a static IP.

I put in my second post:

Also, if it is themselves who have put it into the P2P for download in the hope of catching someone ie 'had lured the accused into committing an act', then it is my belief that they have offered it for download free of charge.

I purposely did not use the word 'entrapment' as that is not a defence in English law.
It is the final part of the above that would be a defence.

All the things on P2P are free, there is no way of charging for it, (I suppose you could put up legal time limited software with an offer to allow it to continue for a fee), so if they put it on themselves in the hope of enticing downloads, then they are offering it free and cannot charge (extortionately) at a later date and make threats if you do not pay.

If there was any Spyware contained within that program offered for free on P2P then they could also be guilty under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. one eight)