File-sharing sweep hits 20 "innocent" people

 

Gallery

By Stuart Turton

Posted on 2 Jul 2009 at 14:36

Which? Computing claims to have discovered 20 people who say they've been mistakenly targeted as illegal file-sharers by a law firm sending out threatening letters.

According to Which? Computing, ACS Law has sent out around 6,000 letters on behalf of games firms Reality Pump and Topware Interactive, claiming that people have been caught illegally file-sharing their games.

The letters demand that people either pay £665 compensation, or face potential court action. However, Which? Computing has thrown doubt on the technology used to identify the alleged file sharers who include a nurse, and the middle-aged director of a technology company.

This technology is provided by Logistep, which monitors peer-to-peer networks to capture IP addresses when a file is uploaded. This information is then used to justify a court order forcing ISPs to reveal the identity of the person behind the IP address.

Speaking to Which? Computing, the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) admitted that the process could be flawed: "We're not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users."

However, the technology was defended by Andrew Crossley, principal owner of ACS Law: "The processes and methods employed by our client's IT experts to produce the evidence which is then submitted to the ISPs, has been the subject of a number of detailed investigations and reports prepared by a qualified information technology consultant including a UK court certified expert."

The tactic is reminiscent of that employed by Davenport Lyons last year, which descended into farce after letters were sent to an elderly Scottish couple it accused of infringing Atari's copyright on Race07, a game they'd never heard of, or played.

That case was dropped and Davenport Lyons is now being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

"The government is calling for a crackdown on illegal file sharers, which is right and proper, but we have some serious concerns about the process that identifies alleged file sharers and we believe that innocent people are being accused," says Which? Computing editor Sarah Kidner.

"Grossly inaccurate"

Crossley says Which's information is "grossly inaccurate".

"Which? has suggested I've sent out 6,000 letters; the figure is closer to 750," he told PC Pro. "Which? makes bold statements without backing it up with evidence. My clients are going to be pretty unhappy when they read this."

Crossley claims the evidence of alleged file sharing is gathered from three different sources, and that the company cross references data such as file-sharing login names with the connection owner's real name or Facebook account to verify that it is them downloading the data.

He does admit it's conceivable that the alleged file sharers are having their open wireless connections hijacked, but says "it's unlikely".