30 Sep 2010
The recent distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on legal firm ACS:Law was perpetrated by online activists who wanted to punish the firm for its aggressive assault on illegal file sharers.
The activists, linked to the 4chan message board, had already attacked a number of high-profile trade organisations involved in promoting action against illegal file sharers, including the Motion Picture Association Of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the British Phonographic Institute.
Further reading
The attacks, described by the instigators as 'Operation Payback', raise important questions over whether the imminent implementation of the Digital Economy Act could threaten the security of the internet and people's data.
The Act outlines obligations for internet service providers (ISPs) to closely monitor illegal file-sharing activities, and notify web users who download illegal content that legal action may be taken.
Until now chief concerns have focused on the cost of implementing the legislation and on whether curbing people's internet freedoms can be justified. But the DDoS attacks have flagged up a need to address the potential security issues surrounding the legislation.
Commentators argue that the increasing amount of customer data that will be collected because of the Digital Economy Act means that the security practices of law firms and ISPs need to be closely monitored.
ACS:Law had been sending letters for over a year to people it believed were guilty of using illegal peer-to-peer sites, demanding payments of between £500 and £700 under the threat of court action.
BT, Sky and O2 sent ACS:Law the evidence it needed to threaten offenders, such as computer IP addresses and the time the users of those IP addresses were supposedly breaching copyright.
When the Digital Economy Act comes into force later this year, more law firms could potentially undertake similar work, and ISPs that had always refused to co-operate with the likes of ACS:Law, such as TalkTalk, may have to start handing over information.
At this point, commentators agree that the risk to the security of customer data will increase dramatically.
Latest stories from Security
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
V3 examines the key strengths and weaknesses of Samsung's latest iPhone killer
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Oracle E-Business Analyst / Functional Consultant - Supply...
SAP consultant Production: SAP MM, IM, PP, APO, Brussels...
Full time DBA with 5-10 years experience will be preffered...
Software Development Manager - Scottish Borders Agile...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Slight problem with wording
"who wanted to punish the firm for its aggressive assault on illegal file sharers" Should really read it's actions which while legal are to all other intents and purposes equivalent to blackmail against people who they alleged, but have never had to prove, knowingly infringed copyright. Worth pointing out that Talk Talk did not have to fight to not work with them, all they had to do was say they would challenge any request for Norwich Pharmacal Orders and magically no law firm felt the need to attempt to get one for Talk Talk customers. While not conclusive, it certainly suggests that all of these companies were looking for easy money and never had any intention of attempting to take anyone at all to court for filesharing. If that was the case, they had no legitimate business looking for any of the Norwich Pharmacal Orders that they requested. If that is the case, then there would be no real problem with the proper implementation of the DEA although it is a particularly unbalanced and damaging piece of legislation.
Posted by: Bart 01 Oct 2010