ISPs admit to taking money for handing over subscribers' data

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1736800/isps-admit-taking-money-handing-subscribers

A VICTIM of shoddy lack of data protection by ACS:Law, Sky Broadband has admitted that copyright holders pay the costs incurred by Internet service providers (ISPs) to turn over the personal information of their subscribers accused of copyright infringement.

Matters haven't been helped by the fact that Sky's news arm, er, Sky News, decided to ignore the matter completely. Searching for "ACS:Law" on the Sky News website returns nothing, while a search for "ACS Law" brings up Crossley's now second most famous flirtation with the media, which was representing a British couple who were jailed for allegedly having sex on a beach in Dubai.

One might say that it's not all that surprising that Sky News would not cover the legal troubles of its corporate sibling, but given that Sky Broadband was simply complying with a legally binding court order, as it claims, it's a bit curious that Sky's own news outlet did not cover the news or put forward the ISP's views.

Since then, an interesting image has tipped up in our inbox, an image of what appears to be a price list for Sky to look up its subscribers' names and addresses based upon whatever IP addresses might be provided by copyright holders.

Sky's official line is that, "Sky has only disclosed account information to ACS:Law when served with a Court Order requiring us to do so. Because this process inevitably imposes a burden on ISPs' resources, the Court has ordered that they should be entitled to recover the reasonable costs of complying."

We were told that the court order doesn't actually include costing and that is something determined after negotiations between copyright holders and ISPs. We have heard on the grapevine that the costs are close to £1 per IP address for the volume of data that Sky was asked to fork over.

A spokesman for Sky responded to the allegations that the screenshot was tantamount to an "IPs for hire" list by saying, "It is wrong to suggest that we have provided information for commercial reasons. This is simply a question of complying with a legally-binding Order and recovering the reasonable costs of doing so."

Even the most cynical hack would find it hard to believe that a firm such as Sky would take such a risk to pad its bottom line with so little money by flogging its own customer's personal data, which is covered under EU and UK data protection laws, for minimal profit.

The idea of ISPs negotiating with copyright holders to recoup costs is still likely to leave customers uncomfortable. One can imagine the outpouring of disgust, should Sky or any ISP ask for customers to pick up the tab for sending their own data over to law firms.

This case is beginning to show just how low some companies will go.  Now it seems some ISPs are not only prepared to hand over your details without challanging the validity of the request, but they also want to make a profit out of doing so.

[Trestor]

I wonder if a case could be made for the idea that the actual data belongs, not to the isps, but to the people doing the surfing, ie, you and me. The fact the isps collect the data is neither here nor there; the data is a record of our own activity and surely belongs to us? If I paint a portrait it belongs to me and not to the person who photographs it.

[Bluey_412]

According to the Cartel, when you buy music, they still own it, you are only buying a license to play it, with restrictions

Same goes for software, doesn't it mister microsnot?