Anti-Piracy Law Firm Torn Apart By Leaked Emails

[L00b]

Hmm my google-fu is more google-bar - Ultradownload you say? Would you happen to have a URL?

I did, but it appears the file has been removed/disabled since. Unsurprisingly

 

Oh well, search with the file name instead

[Eck!]

Found in the inbox of ACS:

 

Bit late for this eh Andrew

 

 

6. I have come across a service designed to protect reputations damag=

ed by the internet. My own IT guy is involved. This is how he describes it;=

it may be of interest: There are 2 aspects to the work:- Prevention and Re=

moval. The basic principle is that we identify the clients key properties t=

o protect:- Company Name; Director Names; Staff Names; Product Names; Servi=

ce Names. For prevention, we aim to dominate the first 5 pages of Google wi=

th search results to pages we control. We build mini websites, social medi=

a profile pages, articles, hub pages, to flood the internet with positive i=

nformation. We create it in such a way that no one suspects it is done pur=

posely for brand protection. If there is negative press (any website) that =

is already published, we use tactics to move those web page results off the=

first 5 pages of Google. Normally no one searches past the first 5 pages.=

[sccsux]

Found in the inbox of ACS:

 

Bit late for this eh Andrew

 

My own IT guy is involved.

 

Would be this the same "IT guy" who was responsible for their web server?

[Eck!]

Shows a basic misunderstanding of how information is disseminated across the internet tbh - "the first five pages of google" is not how current events tend to be spread.

 

Oh I dunno. Its an interesting idea and dominating Page 1 of google would be a relatively straightforward exercise. Spam a few forums, setup some social networking pages, buy a few domain names that selectively aggregated news feeds interspersed with some manufactured ones, then use established sites to backlink to them.

 

The tricky part would be finding something positive to say whilst still answering the questions that people want answered, hence stopping them getting to page 5 in the first place

 

Of course the ethics of this are seriously questionable, so it doesnt surprise me in the slightest that ACS Law have courted the idea.

[Funky_Gibbon]

I hope that the ACS fiasco makes people realise how dangerous the DEB is in itself, by forcing ISPs to recover and store sensitive data on their customers.

 

It hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8032456/ACSLaw-leak-shows-weakness-of-Digital-Economy-Act.html

[sccsux]

There's talk of Sky having set up an 'automated' system for handing IPs over to ACS

 

Maybe there's a reason that there's no mention of the ACS:Law debacle on Sky (TV and online). Absolutely no coverage:confused:.

 

Plusnet are spineless toads.

 

SKY are worse by not covering it at all.

[Eck!]

ACS are all heart. Donating the money they extorted from a disabled child to a charity of her choosing.

 

The letter from the Solicitor is worth reading to the end. I recommend that we accept the offer of a donation of £30 to charity considering the position of the Child involved.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I reccommend we ask the child to make a donation for £15.00 to the charity instead and state that we'd be personally making a donation to the same charity for the remainder in our reply letter. Would make very good publicity.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Here's a good article on the subject (and it's quite long too)

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

[Agrajag]

Maybe there's a reason that there's no mention of the ACS:Law debacle on Sky (TV and online). Absolutely no coverage:confused:.

 

SKY are worse by not covering it at all.

 

Sky don't come out of this looking too good at all.

 

Here's their price list:

 

Less than 1,000 IP sessions per month=£65 per IP address requested.

1,000 - 3,000 IP sessions per month=£10.90 per IP address requested.

3,000 - 5,000 IP sessions per month=£3.60 per IP address requested.

5,000 - 10,000 IP sessions per month=£2.20 per IP address requested.

More than 10,000 sessions per month=£1.10 per IP address requested.

 

Which might seem reasonable if there are costs involved in recovering the data. Plusnet however have said "we haven't charged anyone for disclosing data as a result of a court order", which they are fully entitled to do under the terms of the orders.

 

It seems that Sky may have been profiting from selling out their customers.

[sccsux]

It seems that Sky may have been profiting from selling out their customers.

 

I've read similar being said of BT:(.