illegal download letter

mr_fishbulb

codetown wrote:

They should format the hard disk.
If the law firm has proof that the download has been done via their PC (and they never used that program) it is clear that the PC has been contaminated and opened to hjacking by which someonelse had illegal control of their PC.

So it needs to be formatted to remove all those nasty worms.
I agree with that suggestion!

It might remove the worms but it will also remove all evidence that the PC was infected and this is one explanation of what happened.

As Tim said, this is a civil matter and isn't as easy as innocent until proven guilty. If it did go to court then the defence would have to do all that they can to present the case that their client didn't (knowingly) download this software.

It needs to be disconnected from the internet and not used until this is sorted out.

mikemoate

http://www.fast.org.uk/viewnews.asp?article=3390

This article would suggest that they are taking this whole thing very seriously and are sure of their ground.

"Targets have been identified by an undercover investigator, working covertly for The Federation on a project codenamed Operation Tracker. He is an IT forensics expert, and aims to assist The Federation in cracking down on the suppliers of illegal software."

I think your friend needs to seek urgent legal advice. By the way how did you get on with getting that phone line for incoming calls only, at home but billed to your registered office address, sorted?

Aiadi

I am sure someone devious (but have to admit intelligent) scammer has come across these press releases that people are posting here and deviced this scam to get people's money. I would completely ignore the letter. Murderers are roaming the earth without even being told off and decent law-abiding people are getting terrorised by a b####y software company that had made its fortune by selling c**p software to people. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Mark_LJ

mikemoate wrote:

"Targets have been identified by an undercover investigator, working covertly for The Federation on a project codenamed Operation Tracker. He is an IT forensics expert, and aims to assist The Federation in cracking down on the suppliers of illegal software."

Which would tend to imply the targeting of people who are 'sharing' the software. I would assume that the 'IT expert' is downloading the software from these 'sharers' and will be identifying their IP addresses whilst he is connected to them.

mr_fishbulb

Mark_LJ wrote:

Which would tend to imply the targeting of people who are 'sharing' the software. I would assume that the 'IT expert' is downloading the software from these 'sharers' and will be identifying their IP addresses whilst he is connected to them.

That's the way it's normally done. Write a fake kazaa client and log all the IP addresses who people it is downloading software from.

Or just look at the tracker list for Bit Torrent.

codetown

The release has a punitive tone. But still I don't think even a record of IPs might make a strong case against individuals. And there are a couple of additional aspects:

a) Assuming his machine was sharing the file (without his consent), is he liable for that? It is something like someone stealing your car and committing a robbery: you are not responsible, but a victim yourself of a crime!

b) Even in the case the user does not contest having downloaded (part of) the file, what could he be accused of? He might claim to have been experimenting a new sharing program, or done research/statistics in the file sharing communities and having deleted immediately the software before even opening it. What is the thing of which he might be accused if he did not even use once the program? A license is due to use the program.

c) Thinking a bit. He might be accused of distributing copyright protected material. But again they would need to demonstrate it was the full program, not some packets.

d) The message talks about 150 distributers of copyright material. This should be people who passed new releases out. Can't be Mr Blogg who does not even know what file sharing is and never even used the software they contest him to have downloaded.

Jon_C

Hi Tim,

I posted this:

"In a criminal case the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt. If whoever is sending these letters is willing to let the matter lie in exchange for £300 compensation, that sounds very dodgy - firstly because of the relatively small amount and secondly because financial settlements are only offered as standard practice to avoid civil suits.

If a civil suit is indeed what is threatened, then the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities and even then, it is NOT up to your friend to prove his innocence."

I think you misread it. I was saying that this was more likely to be a civil suit because of the compensation request based on an admission of liability.

Even in a civil case, the claimant has the burden of proving that the defendant was at fault. All the would-be defendant in this particular case would have to do is, as I advised, NOTHING - no formatting machines etc.

This is all theory anyway because as far as I know, we still don't know whether this is a scam (what I advised the OP several times to assume it was).

I largely agree with your advice but think that some people who are unfamiliar with the basics of civil suits and criminal cases might, after reading your post, wrongly assume that claimants in civil suits have the upper hand by default.

I hope you don't think my advice was in the very bad category either. I am doing my best to help and I would rather hope that I haven't led anyone up the garden path.

gug_3

People have been found liable for file sharing before so your friend should take this pretty seriously.

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18707

rogerramjet

Doesn't matter if wireless network is open or encrypted as anyone with the correct equipment can hack through the encryption.

Was speaking to a family member recently who works with high security alarm systems and he was at a conference where there was a chap talking about wireless security. The chap basically got around their wireless system security within 5 minutes. The best bit is, these companies know that but try their best to scare people into paying out.

Also, who's to say the OP isn't actually employed by the company he portrays to be chasing his mate?

Quite a good way to scare peeps who do file sharing, go to a forum post about what's happened....gets to know all the excuses which the firm could face when trying to convince someone to pay....Bit cynical tonight

Aiadi

Scam Scam Scam............. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: