Fobbed off by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – Incompetence abounds

I sent the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) an email regarding their investigation into the ACS:LAW Data Leak.

The email contained a few simple questions.

1: Why is ACS:LAW/Andrew Crossley  still registered at 20 Hanover Sq London as a Data Controller.

2: Do you think it is appropriate to offer Mr Crossley a 20% for early payment of his fine?

3: Do you think that Mr Crossley may have been in a better position to pay his fine had the ICO not taken so long to conclude it’s investigation?

The reply I got from the ICO after 14 days was this.

 

An obvious template response, I even got the ICO’s ACS:LAW FACT SHEET. And (wait for it) How to get compensation from ACS:LAW!!! (See Below)

Well of course my thinking was that if the ICO thought that it was only worth under 20p for everyone who has had their details leaked then imagine the Compo I would get from ACS:LAW I mean I might even get a penny a WHOLE Penny.  Wow well it truly has got me thinking until of course I realised that even the cheapest postal stamp (36p) would be many times my compensation, and incidentally more than the ICO fined ACS:LAW per individual. 

There has been talk by Christopher Graham the head of the ICO that he would have liked to have fined ACS:LAW £200,000 but of course that was proven to be merely a dose of hot air. (See question 2)

Mr Graham in fact has been in the news a few times since regarding other “Data protection issues” and again appears to be a mighty knight roaring about the rights and wrongs of the issue and how people should protect data, but he wields a foam sword.1 2

Maybe it is not his fault, maybe the ICO is handcuffed by legislation as Mr Graham seems to believe.  One thing is sure, I and many others have been through too much disruption in our lives to leave this alone now, we have invested the most precious of commodities know to humans, that of TIME, we did not ask Mr Crossley and his ACS:LAW “clown asses” to invade our lives with their preposterous allegations. 

A investigation into ACS:LAW by PCPRO this week was revealing and showed how Andrew Crossley had shown the ICO to be mugs.  An ICO spokesperson had told ZDNET “The £1,000 reflects his financial condition. He did drive a Bentley at one point, but he doesn’t now.” Well guess what PCPRO saw when they turned up at Crossley house? The Bentley still on his drive.

We are now over two years into this now and those accused by Davenport Lyons into their third year.  This whole situation has been a travesty of Justice, where the bad guys have been allowed to accuse thousands, leak their details and remain in a good position when they should be skulking back to the rock they crawled from.

There is still light though, on Tuesday this week (31st May) Dave Gore and Brian Miller the two Solicitors accused by the Solicitors Regulation Authority(SRA) will stand before their Disciplinary board (SDT) to answer for their actions in pursuing people they KNEW to be innocent.  Andrew Crossleys date is also coming soon.  There is real hope that partial justice may be done to these people.

It remains to be seen wether the SRA will act in a proper way and not in the way that the ICO has acted like a “Toothless  Tiger”

 

About Hickster

I am one of the many innocent people who have been accused of file sharing by Copyright Trolls, my letter came from the now infamous ACS:LAW, but they have now been emulated by many more using the same system. Their ruse is simple, Send out letters of claim with NO Real evidence beyond an IP address that they claim was captured using a frowned upon hack of Shareaza. My REAL opinion of these companies turned when they started sending out Pornography claims, THAT is what I find most disturbing. People who HAVE to pay up without the option of having their day in Court. THAT is NOT Justice. Why can't they just go to Court? because the Lawyers, pitch the price of paying the "Compensation" at about the same rate as hiring a lawyer to fight it. Things have changed in the last 8 years though. I would advise people to read the "Speculative Invoicing Handbook Part 2", research these people yourselves, and find me at Slyck Forums, or on Twitter. Do NOT Worry, Stand Strong
This entry was posted in ACS LAW Letters and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Fobbed off by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – Incompetence abounds

  1. Jack says:

    There can be no doubt that the ICO is reluctant to act against “professionals” or companies. At least the ICO fined Crossley, it’s different to what he did to BT for the same offence. Woe betide you or I to expose private individual’s data though.
    Crossley has been fined by the ICO and when he faces the SDT that will be undeniable even if the sum was paltry, it’s also an issue which will make Crossley uninsurable in the future.

    You’ve got to hand it to Crossley, he has twisted the establishment round his little finger and used their naivety to his advantage. Crossley is a heavy weight up against feather weights in that department (no pun intended). Presumably the appointment to be the Information Commissioner was for failure elsewhere in a political system which rewards failure.

    On the other hand the Digital Economy Act asserts guilt by suspicion, no need for evidence at all there because it’s not aimed at professionals and companies.

  2. zoomboy says:

    The ICO only have teeth when it comes to Gov’t organisations. It seems where there is an ability for the public to pay (indirectly) they’re happy to toss out tens of thousands in fines. Even when by comparison the leak involved a single device and the data did NOT end up on the internet.

    In the case of ACS they put their data on the internet for thousands of people to gain access to. The ICO pitching a fine at a level where the guilty have the ability to pay is laughable when the guilty also have the ability to lie and deceive them into what their actual financial status is!

    • Hickster says:

      It is interesting the mentality of the ICO, I always thought a “Fine” was meant to be a punishment, I am sure if I went to Court for an offence, the Judge would not tell me he would give me a fine that I could easily pay, he would fine me regardless.

      A fine should be painful, what Crossely allowed to happen by releasing all those names and details online was VERY painful to those involved, and has put a lot of peoples lives on hold, as well as threatening marriages. The ICO has not taken ANY of that into account.

  3. Hickster says:

    It is interesting the mentality of the ICO, I always thought a “Fine” was meant to be a punishment, I am sure if I went to Court for an offence, the Judge would not tell me he would give me a fine that I could easily pay, he would fine me regardless.

    A fine should be painful, what Crossley allowed to happen by releasing all those names and details online was VERY painful to those involved, and has put a lot of peoples lives on hold, as well as threatening marriages. The ICO has not taken ANY of that into account.

    A lot of peoples marriages might not be able to take the accusation of some of these vile pornography titles. The linking of names to these films is unacceptable. Lee Bowden and Andrew Crossley should be punished and they have escaped. What justice?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s