In message
-septemb
er.org, Tim+ writes
Bill wrote:
In message , Bill
writes
And I still want to know whether, if my friend of friend became
aggressive they would have a claim against Sky.
The 2006 EU Data Retention Directive, which Sky apparently claims to be
working to, states that data should be retained for a maximum of 2
years, and yet Sky has passed on information, which may or may not be
correct, from well over 2 years ago.

Sorry to follow up my own post, but I've now looked at the Directive, and
it looks as though Sky has broken the law. The alleged IP address
allocation was for the date of April 2013 and the Sky letter was
dated July 2015.
See the first and last paragraphs below:

"Article 6

Periods of retention

Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in
Article 5 are retained for periods of not less than six months and not
more than two years from the date of the communication.

Article 7

Data protection and data security

Without prejudice to the provisions adopted pursuant to Directive
95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, each Member State shall ensure that
providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of
a public communications network respect, as a minimum, the following data
security principles with respect to data retained in accordance with
this Directive:

(a)


the retained data shall be of the same quality and subject to the same
security and protection as those data on the network;

(b)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to protect the data against accidental or unlawful destruction,
accidental loss or alteration, or unauthorised or unlawful storage,
processing, access or disclosure;

(c)


the data shall be subject to appropriate technical and organisational
measures to ensure that they can be accessed by specially authorised
personnel only;

and

(d)


the data, except those that have been accessed and preserved, shall be
destroyed at the end of the period of retention."

So, it looks like Sky have broken the law, but isn't that a separate issue
though? The issue of breach of copyright is still there surely?

Tim
Well, IANAL, but I would have thought that an alleged, disputed and
unprovable breach of copyright based on data that was illegally held and
that did not incriminate the person named in the data would not be a
sensible place from which to start any legal action or threat.

We have a few more days to decide whether they should just bin the
letters or respond. I'd be tempted to respond quite aggressively to Sky
and copy in the dodgy law firm/copyright purchaser, but it might be
interesting to take all this along to the local CAB (who are suggested
by Sky) and see what they advise.

I'm grateful for the pointers in this thread to the other reports about
this.
--
Bill