Lawyer on the Run from Filesharing Fiasco
by Kismo Monday, Feb 7 2011, 2:59pm
A scumbag LAWYER that engaged in the morally questionable and dubious practice of "speculative invoicing” – making accusations and demanding monies WITHOUT PROOF of violation – has ‘thrown his company against the wall’ and run from the wrath and legal litigation that his false accusations have created; we are all aware of the outrage experienced when we are falsely accused!
Fearing massive retaliatory litigation, this SCUMBAG LAWYER is attempting to ‘throw off’ by claiming that his family has been subject to death threats, which is highly unlikely considering the ease with which this arsehole and his associates could be successfully sued.
The BLIND, American-style, dragnet operation this imbecile utilised in his failed attempt to extract monies from the people, is based on the American, ‘guilty until proven innocent' concept established by the criminal Bush administration and religiously maintained by the puppet Obama administration, which of course is an INVERSION of STANDARD LEGAL PROCEDURE, assuming ‘innocence until proven otherwise,’ which continues to apply in most uncorrupted (by America) civilised nations of the WORLD.
There is nothing more satisfying or entertaining than watching a scurrilous scumbag on the run from the wrath of the people. The world is becoming aware that self-important professionals and ruling elites are NOTHING but criminal scum with 'airs' that are very EASY to DISPATCH.
Speaking as an insider (hacker) I can confidently state that the ‘code’ does not include making death threats to families or other innocents; however, cyber attacks targeting scum, otherwise known as lawyers, who would attempt to intimidate THE good people of the world, are legitimate and effective responses. Though in this instance, pursuing this lying, unscrupulous piece of shit, AND his associates through the Courts, would be a walk in the park.
And for those who may have forgotten or are new to the ‘code’ -- We are ANONYMOUS (always) -- we are NO ONE therefore EVERYONE. Are you reading this, ‘gifted glamour boy,’ Julian ‘fake hacker’ Assange?
Make no mistake, we Own the Wire. [Another one bites the (digital) dust.]
We are MANY-- we are ONE -- we are UNSTOPPABLE!
Report from the Guardian UK follows:
ACS:Law and MediaCAT close their doors, ending filesharing claims
© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited
by Charles Arthur
A law firm that sent out hundreds of letters to people it accused of illegally sharing copyrighted files has shut down, days before a key court decision on whether defendants could claim damages.
ACSLaw, which sent out thousands of "speculative invoicing" letters on behalf of its client MediaCAT, accusing people of illegally downloading copyright content -- and threatening court action if they didn't pay -- apparently shutdown on Monday 31 January. MediaCAT is also understood to have ‘closed shop’ as well.
The closure marks the end of a tumultuous chapter in rows over filesharing and piracy in Britain. Although a number of people have been sued in the past decade by record companies, it appears to have had only minimal impact on levels of piracy and filesharing. The use of "speculative invoicing" - alleging infringement without definitive proof - had looked like a new front in the battle.
But instead it turned into a three-way row between ACS:Law, the alleged infringers and internet service providers from whom user details had been demanded.
The closedown comes ahead of a judgement due on Tuesday afternoon at the patents county court at which 27 people who had received letters were seeking a definitive ruling from the judge on whether they could claim damages after both ACS:Law and MediaCAT declined to put forward any evidence.
MediaCAT had signed up a number of copyright owners who gave it permission to pursue people it accused of file-sharing based on data it had collected. It then sought the names and addresses of those people from internet service providers (ISPs) including BT. That in turn led to a row in which some ISPs said they would not cooperate with requests.
Andrew Crossley, the lead solicitor at ACS:Law who set the firm up, had previously said that he would exit the field following threats to his family.
MediaCAT and ACS:Law tried to drop the cases that came to court, but Judge Birss said that it would not be simple to drop the case because the copyright holders themselves were not in court. That meant in theory that if the MediaCAT case were discontinued, then the copyright holders could still come after those accused.
He also questioned MediaCAT's decision to drop the case: "I want to tell you that I am not happy. I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny," he told its barrister.
Some of the defendants had said they would seek to sue Crossley for harassment, but it is not known whether they can now pursue an individual case against him for actions taken by his former firm.
The letters provoked a huge row because hundreds of the accused claimed that they had been wrongly identified. The Solicitors Regulation Authority was investigating ACS:Law's practices before the company closed down. It is not clear whether the investigation will be carried on against Crossley as an individual following ACS:Law's closure.
The issue was made worse for Crossley and ACS:Law after the personal details - including names, phone numbers and addresses - of thousands of Britons leaked online via an attack on the company's website. Many also saw their names or postcodes linked to pornographic films which MediaCAT was claiming they had illicitly downloaded. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was investigating the breach, and could have levied a fine of up to £500,000 if ACS:Law were found to have been holding the information insecurely. It is unclear whether that case can be continued against Crossley as an individual or whether it lapses with the company's closure.
COMMENTSshow latest comments first show comment titles only
jump to comment 1
‘Anonymous’ hacks security firm that probed its membership
by Eric W. Dolan via al - Raw Story Tuesday, Feb 8 2011, 3:08pm
The online group of hacktivists known as "Anonymous" infiltrated the network and websites of an Internet security company after learning the company planned to sell information about the group to the FBI.
The website of Washington DC-based HBGary Federal was hijacked Sunday along with the Twitter account of CEO Aaron Barr. The company's website was defaced with a message that read, "This domain seized by Anonymous under section #14 of the rules of the Internet."
"Your recent claims of 'infiltrating' Anonymous amuse us, and so do your attempts at using Anonymous as a means to garner press attention for yourself," the messaged continued. "How's this for attention?"
Barr told the Financial Times over the weekend that he had identified the "core leaders" of the group and had information that could lead to their arrest.
He told the Times he infiltrated "Anonymous" to demonstrate the security risks to organizations from social media and networking.
In addition to hacking the company's website and Twitter account, "Anonymous" gained access to more than 44,000 company e-mails, which were released to the public in a 4.71 gigabyte Torrent file. The group also gained access to the report that was allegedly going to be sold to the FBI and posted it online (.pdf).
"Anonymous" claims that most of the information gathered was either publicly available or inaccurate.
"The lack of quality in Aaron Barr's undertaken research is worth noting," the group said in a statement. "Aaron Barr missed a great deal of information that has been available online, and in fact failed to identify some of those whose identities were never intended to be hidden. People such as DailyKos' diarist blogger Barrett Brown, and the administrator of anonnews.org, joepie91, whose identities could have been found in under a minute with a simple Google search."
"Anonymous does not have leaders," the statement added. "We are not a group, we are not an organization. We are just an idea. What we have done today will appear harsh. It is harsh. We will respond to those who seek to threaten us. We understand that our participants have been concerned about recent FBI raids and companies such as HBGary Federal lurking and logging our chats, so we’ve given all of Anonymous a message: we will fight back."
Burr reportedly talked to members of "Anonymous" in an IRC chatroom, claiming he never intended to sell the information he gathered to the FBI.
"Ok I am going to say this one more time," he told the room. "I did this for 'research.' The FBI called me because of my research. The email you are referring to about selling data was about a model built on this type of research. It was not to sell specifically this data. I was going to use it to describe the process of how social media exploitation works."
"Do I regret it now? Sure," he told Forbes on Monday. "I’m getting personal threats from people, [not any hacker] and I have two kids. I have two four-year old kids. Nothing is worth that."
"I had expected some potential retribution," he said. "I knew some folks would take my research as some kind of personal attack which it absolutely was not. I thought they might take down our Web site with a DDoS attack. I did not prepare for them to do what they did."
Barr told Forbes he had to unplug his router at home because "Anonymous" was trying to crack it.
Three teenagers aged 15, 16 and 19 along with two men, aged 20 and 26, were arrested by British authorities January 27 for their involvement in "recent and ongoing" attacks by "Anonymous." The FBI announced mass raids across the United States on the same day, executing more than 40 search warrants throughout the nation.
In a campaign known as "Operation Payback" those participating in "Anonymous" succeeded in taking down the online operations of PayPal, MasterCard Worldwide, Visa, Swiss bank PostFinance and others using a technique called "distributed denial of service" (DDoS) attacks. The companies were targeted after they dropped their financial services to WikiLeaks.
The group has also targeted the websites of a number of governments, including Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Yemen, and Italy.
<< back to stories