[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My response would be, if it were a groundless accusation "accuse away". Because you're rather missing the point: this is the first stage in the process and has no effect on the consumer.

I think some people might take offense to being accused of breaking the law, and now having it officially recorded on their account that they have done so.

The next stage in the process is that the rights-holder can request an "anonymised" list from the ISP of all customers who have exceeded a certain level of complaints in a given time period (that period to be defined by OfCom regulations). They then have to go to court, present their evidence to the court, and get a court order for the ISP to release subscriber information.

Very little evidence is required to get a Norwich Pharmacal order, and you would not be a party to the case, or even be notified that it was happening.

Nevertheless there is a potential difficulty with the Norwich Pharmacal process which is put into focus by the cases before me. The respondent to the Norwich Pharmacal application for disclosure - while obviously wishing to ensure that an order is not made when it would be inappropriate to do so – has no direct interest in the underlying cause of action relied on. The respondent is not going to be sued. A Norwich Pharmacal application is not and cannot be the place in which to try the cause of action. That happens when the person's identity is revealed and then usually proceedings are commenced. Even if proceedings are not commenced – in a situation like Ashworth where a single name is being sought in order to discipline the person – no doubt that person would be able to take whatever steps to defend themselves they wished to and if necessary the matter could come to an appropriate court or tribunal.

Chief Master Winegarten made Norwich Pharmacal orders in the present case. The respondents were internet service providers (ISPs) whose records can identify the names and addresses of their subscribers based on IP addresses at a given date and time. Amongst other things Media CAT presented Chief Master Winegarten with statements from technical experts to support their case. The Norwich Pharmacal orders were made and as a result the ISP provided the names and addresses of subscribers which the ISP stated represented the various IP addresses identified by Media CAT . Tens of thousands of names and addresses have been produced to Media CAT as a result of the 3 or 4 relevant Norwich Pharmacal orders, the earliest of which was in November 2009. There have been other similar Norwich Pharmacal orders in recent years, before November 2009, which although not sought by Media CAT have been based on the same general approach. It is remarkable therefore that the underlying causes of action on which all these cases are based has not been tested at trial.

The DEA provisions are a way to force the ISPs to participate in practices which seem very close to extortion, and where the cost of defending yourself would be greater than just paying the protection money.