Law firm: unsecured Wi-Fi is no file-sharing defence

Suing alleged downloaders; the new ambulance chasing?

By Mr_Flynn on 22 Jul 2010

No win no fee lawyer firms. As someone once said "Round them up. Put them in a field. And .... ... ....... 's."

By CraigieDD on 22 Jul 2010

The despicable money sucking leeches strike!

I am in no way condoning illegal file sharing, however I detest these strong arm bully boy tactics to intimidate people. Not everyone is IT literate and knows about securing PC's and WiFi connections.

Whatever happened to justice in this country. Innocent until PROVED guilty. It should up to the prosecution to PROVE guilt with facts, not hearsay.

By r50mini on 22 Jul 2010

Justice is a double-edged sword

@r50mini you say that someone is innocent until proven guilty yet you condemn this law firm without any evidence they are behaving improperly.
Similarly you accuse them of using hearsay yet they must rely on information gathered by a third party mapping illegal downloads to ip addresses and would have needed to show to the relevant ISPs that they had reasonable cause to request customer details.
Finally they may be acting on instructions from a client whose interest they are bound in law to represent.
All the indications in more reasoned coverage of this issue indicate that they went to some lengths to assure they complied with reasonable practice before issuing the letters.

By milliganp on 22 Jul 2010

@milliganp

Check in to the sheer volume of reported instances where such letters were sent, but then dropped after the subject denied the allegation.

It seems a fair -indication- that this is a bombing run tactic and that there is a Very low level of confidence in the 'evidence' used to put these lists together.

The fact is, anyoen sharing en-masse is tech savy enough to encrypt their communications. And so are effectively out of reach of these lawyers.

So, instead, it appears that they bombarred the more niaive public in the knowledge 'enough' people will run scared and pay-up even if innocent.

THAT is the disgrace. It's not about justice, it's about cash at the expense of the innocent and without regard to fairness.

By matbailie on 22 Jul 2010

It's a clear case of "ticket everyone and see whose dumb enought to pay"

Frighten parents into paying off scary lawyers because they can't be sure they kids DIDN'T download something and aren't tech-savy enough to prove otherwise.

It's a disgusting scam and should be stopped.

I thinks its time everyone opened their WiFi. What are they going to do then? Sue the entire population?

I've been trying to trace someone by IP address and its stupidly innaccurate. Until every clock on every PC and router can be proved correct (impossible) then any IP related "evidence" is pure bunk!

By cheysuli on 22 Jul 2010

Does this mean..

If I were to leave my car unlocked, on purpose. It was then stolen and used in a robbery. Would this leagal logic then mean that I was also guilty of the robbery as I had purposely left my car unlocked?

By DagMiller on 22 Jul 2010

"But we must be clear that we won’t take any action if people can show they have done nothing wrong.”

So they even admit its guilty until proven innocent. People shouldn't have to show they have done nothing wrong. Its for these parasites to show they have. An IP address proves nothing.

By omnisvalidus on 22 Jul 2010

“But we must be clear that we won’t take any action if people can show they have done nothing wrong.”

@milliganp... I think this is the GUILTY until proven INNOCENT line.

The vast majority of the UK broadband users have Dynamic IP addresses. If a user restarts their router, they are not guaranteed the same IP - how are ISP's mapping IP addresses to people?

In addition, using a secured wireless can also be a defence if the router only uses WEP encryption!

By maniacOverclock on 22 Jul 2010

If there is no case law, then how can you asses want circumstances constitute a viable defence? If this lawyer feels he has a real case then he should shut up and test the methods he and his client have used to establish the essential facts of the case in a court. He’d better bring an overnight bag, as the first one of these cases that meets a robust defence will run all the way to Europe.

I have worked in forensic computing long enough to know that this lawyer might baffle and scare a few folk into paying up - but apart from that I see little here but hot air. The irony is that his clients brand "Ministry of Sound" will no doubt now suffer as its customers realise what heavy handed money grabbers they are. It’s one thing to protect your assets; it’s another thing to poke your customers in the eye.....

Taping killed Radio, VHS killed the cinema and now filesharing will kill us all im sure.

By westofheaven on 22 Jul 2010

IP address + time = account holder

Sorry, cheysuli - this bunch of parasites will get the IP of the downloader & demand the name and address from the relevant ISP. And they'll use the times from the DHCP server that handed out the address, not from a PC or router.
This is info the ISP will have, they will have to know for billing purposes at the very least.

If everyone did open up their WiFi, then that would just give these bottom-feeders more targets - like you say, frightening people into paying up.

Never understood how anyone could prove a negative, either. Especially with the idea of 'suspicious deletions'.
"Look, the file's not there and your recycle bin is empty
- Therefore you must have deleted it..."

By greemble on 22 Jul 2010

@westofheaven

Agreed, except for the first case meeting a robust defence.

ANY defence & the prosecution will likely drop it - they don't want to test it, they just want to scare people into paying without further questions.
Max profit, min effort

By greemble on 22 Jul 2010

@Greemble

to clarify - If the music / movie / ambulance chasing industry want to push this matter they will have to go all the way to europe, as they will be kicked out of every court in the land. I am confident that the ECHR will greet any case with hollow laughter also.

By westofheaven on 22 Jul 2010

Test case needed

Until one of these outfits gets brave enough to take a case to court, I don't think we'll really know if unsecured (or hacked) wifi is sufficient defence.

By halsteadk on 22 Jul 2010

@Greemble

to clarify - If the music / movie / ambulance chasing industry want to push this matter they will have to go all the way to europe, as they will be kicked out of every court in the land. I am confident that the ECHR will greet any case with hollow laughter also.

By westofheaven on 22 Jul 2010

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

i.e. the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

This is one of the oldest statutes of law now enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unsecured wireless *is* a defense unless the law firm can prove that you personally downloaded the file.

What next? If you don't lock your car and it's stolen and used in a bank robbery are you suddenly guilty of the robbery?

By amhoyle1 on 22 Jul 2010

But how Gallant Macmillan get hold of the names

So how do Gallant Macmillan match the IP address to a name & adress? The ISP's are handing over the information on request, on no more than an allegation. This is outrageous, its a massive breach of privacy.

I hope as a result of cases like this the public become a lot more aware of this, that your ISP will now hand over your personal details to a private 3rd party on request.

By tesco123 on 22 Jul 2010

@tesco123

The company needs a court order to force the ISP to hand over the information. So it is not the fault of the ISP.

By halsteadk on 22 Jul 2010

”Most routers come with security on as a default - if someone has made a decision to unsecure their network they can’t take that action without realising that there maybe consequences."

When did the vendors start securing the Wireless Access Point by default when they sold them off-the-shelf?

I have never bought a wireless switch/router that had the connection encrypted by default.

By Old_Gray_Wolf on 23 Jul 2010

@Gremble

You miss the point.

Proving time of download, IP address at time of download and Owner of IP at time of download relies on more than one PC clock, which are always different and frequently WRONG. This is not evidence, its electronic hearsay.

By cheysuli on 23 Jul 2010

"The company needs a court order to force the ISP to hand over the information. So it is not the fault of the ISP"

But on what basis is such a court order granted? How does a private 3rd party get such a court order to access your personal information, based only on an allegation in a civil case?

These laws have come in under the radar and the public don't understand the implication of them.

By tesco123 on 23 Jul 2010

"These laws have come in under the radar and the public don't understand the implication of them"

Along with this goes the willingness of the DVLA to hand over personal details of car owners to any old clamping company.

By halsteadk on 23 Jul 2010

COURT?

is it possible to take someone to court for this? i thought it would be a matter for a small claims court? perhaps a warning to users would be amore sufficient way of dealing with piracy etc. if an isp knows there is a quantity of download data going to an account holder surely a letter saying you are being watched would be better. i received one of these letters and it frightned the hell out of me. i never downloaded this album but surely they would need physical evidence that the offence took place i.e my computer. can anybody help with these queries.

By masterchief on 24 Jul 2010

Found guilty?

The problem is, they have tracked down the use of the IP address to a physical connection. If they can prove in court, that that physical connection was used to download illegal material (copyright, kiddie porn, whatever), then the person who rents that line has to prove that they did not download/upload that material.

In a civil court, the burden of proof is with the defendant, in this case. They have to prove that they didn't undertake the alleged offence. Saying that the wi-fi was open and it could have been anyone doesn't prove that they didn't do it...

Here, in Germany, it is now illegal to have an open access point, without a licence (which means you have to log MAC addresses connecting to the access point and keeping a log of their activities). As most private householders aren't in a position to keep such logging, they are automatically responsible for any illegal activities on their line; therefore it is now a legal requirement to encrypt your link (WPA or better).

Anybody who doesn't encrypt their link and doesn't have an access point licence, will get a fixed penalty fine (around 100-125€ ISTR). I believe, much like when the seatbelt laws were brought in, first time "offenders" are warned and given time to rectify the situation.

By big_D on 27 Jul 2010