Why Did UK Anti-Piracy Group FACT Get Computers From A Criminal Investigation... And Keep Them?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right... dept
Last month, we wrote about the lawsuit brought by UK anti-piracy industry group FACT against the company Scopelight and its founders for running a video search engine called Surfthechannel.com. Considering it was simply a video search engine and pointed to content that was both authorized and unauthorized, we wondered how FACT could tell a legit search engine from an illegal one. However, more details on the case are coming to light, and the whole thing seems questionable. Someone, who prefers to remain anonymous, sent along the news that the lawyers for Scopelight have now won the first battle against FACT, and the full decision reveals some rather troubling details about how closely FACT -- a private industry group -- collaborated with the police in the initial investigation, and then FACT's own actions after the police investigation concluded.It's already troubling enough that a private industry group, involved solely in activities designed to protect a business model, was allowed to work so closely with police in a criminal investigation. FACT alerted the police to potential illegality at Scopelight, which is fine, but from then on FACT was intimately involved in the criminal investigation. When the owners of Scopelight, Anton Benjamin Vickerman and his wife Kelly-Anne Vickerman, had their home raided by the police... FACT came along for the investigation. Not only that, but they had their own private investigator copy information from the Vickerman's computers (exactly what and how much was copied is apparently in dispute). When the Vickerman's were questioned by the police, FACT members took part in the questioning.
It seems troubling enough that private industry reps were allowed to be so closely involved in a criminal investigation where they have clear bias, but it gets worse. The police seized various computers and equipment as part of arresting the Vickerman's, and then allowed FACT employees to inspect the computers and the information found on them -- which, again seems to be granting way too much access to a private group. Then things got even more bizarre: the police gave a bunch of the equipment to FACT to allow FACT to continue to examine the equipment.
A few months after the original raid, investigation and arrest, the police decided that there wasn't enough for criminal charges, and decided not to prosecute the Vickerman's. The police told the Vickerman's their property could be returned, so the Vicerkman's lawyers contacted FACT asking for the equipment back, at which point FACT refused, claiming it was holding onto the equipment because it was considering bringing a civil suit against the Vickermans -- which it eventually did bring.
So beyond the rather stunning close working relationship between the police and a private industry group on a criminal investigation, including handing over evidence to a private party, once the police decided not to prosecute, that private party decided to keep the computer equipment and use it for a civil suit. Thankfully, the court has ruled that this latter decision was improper, and the moment the police decided not to prosecute, the equipment should have been returned. So while this is a victory for Scopelight, it's still a rather stunning revelation of how closely integrated a private industry organization is with criminal investigations, and certainly raises questions as to why such a group should get such access.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal, fact, investigation, surfthechannel.com, uk
Companies: scopelight
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All I can say is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA is no different
See: http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-victim-or-prosecutor-080913/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what did surfthechannel say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what did surfthechannel say?
Mr. Anonymous didn't say anything. He sent a link to the actual ruling which I linked to above and which has all the details.
Are you suggesting that something is incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what did surfthechannel say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting tidbit in the above linked judgement.
"That claim is defended on two bases: first, it is said that such a claim cannot be made by way of a claim for conversion, which is the only cause of action relied on, since information is not property which can be converted."
Do I read this right, the judge says that "information is not property" that can be stolen.
Those of you more versed in the law could comment of the ramifications of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting tidbit in the above linked judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what did surfthechannel say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The police had already decided to drop the criminal case and the rules for civil cases are much looser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Um, they had the computers *before* the prosecuter decided to drop the case. Hell, that may be WHY they decided to drop the case, once they noodled it through.
Are the civil rules THAT much laxer? It'd make me suspect every civil judgement if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Um, you don't know that. They may have had the computers before the gov't *informed* Scopelight they were not prosecuting, but that's a different thing. I suspect the gov't decided to drop the criminal case, gave the equipment to FACT, and then informed Scopelight.
Are the civil rules THAT much laxer? It'd make me suspect every civil judgement if so.
Yes, they are. And you're right to be suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And have they now been arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Market
So they bought influence, big deal. The police are simply following capitalistic principles and selling out to the highest bidder. That's the way open markets work. Haven't you heard of capitalism? There's no such thing as too much of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open Market
Erm, I didn't claim that it was abuse at all. Just the opposite in fact, so why are you making up that strawman?
You are making a straw man argument here.
Heh, first you make one, and then you see one where there wasn't. I don't think you even know what a strawman argument is. Hint: it isn't just anything you disagree with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
viking lawsuits FTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense
This issue has come up before with camera crews for that COPS show. In a few cases, property owners have objected to the presence of the TV show’s camera crew and ordered them out of their home and off their property, asserting (correctly) that just because the police have a legal right to be there, that doesn’t mean anyone else who feels like it can wander into their home and being a TV camera crew confers no special right to trespass on private property. The police refused to bar the camera crews and continued to allow them to film, after which the property owner sued both the TV show and the police for various civil wrongs, including invasion of privacy and trespass, and in each case the property owner was victorious. Now the COPS crews are fully briefed that they must leave immediately if the property owner tells them to, even if that property owner is on the floor in handcuffs while being arrested for drug possession at the time.
As for FACT conducting interrogations with the cops, I’d have just told them to go take a flying leap. I probably wouldn’t even be answering the cops’ questions without my lawyer present. If I’m not going to talk to a cop, I’m sure as hell not going to talk to some goon from a RIAA wanna-be group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nonsense
My personal experience with this says otherwise, at least in the case of contractors. I (through my employer) have previously been contracted by US federal law enforcement agencies to accompany them to execute search warrants and provide technical assistance in searching computer equipment. I don't go busting in the door with them, but after they have secured the place they come back and bring me in for the technical part. These agencies have always said (on advice from the US Attorney General) that this is legal and the evidence thus gathered has never been excluded from court because of it. I would be interested in knowing of any cases to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nonsense
If you were contracted by a law enforcement agency, as An Advising Expert, sure, your stuff is admissible.
The point here is that FACT doesn't seem to be brought in as Advising Experts, and even took their own stuff that didn't go into evidence with the agents. They don't get to take the data, it must be 'recovered' by an agent in the execution of the warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same story in Germany
Same happens with GVU, the "Gesellschaft für die Verfolgung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen" (organisation to prevent copyright infringements). This private organisiation tips off the police and is allowed to participate in the raids, they even are asked to be consultants or expert witnesses since they know so much about the topic. They've even been know to host warez servers to crack down on downloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fail
I do not know about UK laws but I doubt they are stupid enough to allow what happened. In any case, the FileSoup owner has been arrested these days and suffered all kinds of problems and human rights violations. The prosecutor? FACT.
The clear message here is: "we want you to respect copyright laws and give us your money, but we won't respect neither laws nor fundamental human rights". Anyone up for some downloading party?
Gestapo, guerrilla, FACT, RIAA, terrorists... In the end they are all the same rotten product that use different packages. And they will do whatever to have it their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fascism
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
--Benito Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeez some people.
After all, you can't make an omlette without maliciously incriminating someone with planted evidence on their PC.....
I thought everyone went to the RIAA school of criminal investigations????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]