From: The Older Gentleman on
Niel Humphreys <admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:

> Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think twice about
> doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set and it may not be so
> safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....

Well, it was easy to trace Spacker as he put a snapshot of his postcode
up on a website and invited everyone to look at it :-)


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Steve Walker on
Niel Humphreys wrote:
> "Fran" <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote in message
> news:i3oj46$85r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk>
>> wrote in message news:i3oh45$ti$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think
>>> twice about doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set
>>> and it may not be so safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> RNS Number : 7262Q
>>> Nighthawk Energy plc
>>> 09 August 2010

>> The only reason this one has worked - if indeed it has - is that
>> it may be shown to have caused serious and material commercial
>> harm by talking down the share price. It's called market abuse and
>> only applies to share price impacts.
>>
>> I very much doubt it would have any credence or be counted as
>> reasonable in English/Welsh law where someone has admitted to an
>> action and then gets called out for it, for example.
>
> This was not a one off, The Times also won a court action to
> disclose the identity of a blogger they were doing an atricle on a
> while back.

By an odd coincidence, that was NightJack.

First they came for the Nights, but I did nothing because I was not a Night.


From: Mike on
In message <1jmz2ez.1fd29hn1chvsxyN%totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk>
at 19:39:04 on Mon, 9 Aug 2010, The Older Gentleman
<totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>Niel Humphreys <admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think twice about
>> doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set and it may not be so
>> safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....
>
>Well, it was easy to trace Spacker as he put a snapshot of his postcode
>up on a website and invited everyone to look at it :-)
>
>
I remember someone doing a video from a car and going down his road, but
I didn't work out how people knew his name or whatever to identify what
house he lived in
--
Mike News
From: The Older Gentleman on
Mike <turnpike_user(a)turnpike_REMOVEuser.THIScomANDTHIS> wrote:

> I remember someone doing a video from a car and going down his road, but
> I didn't work out how people knew his name or whatever to identify what
> house he lived in

He had his postcode on display. From that, MultiMap or similar provided
a street.

That was put into Google, and it threw up all his 'about me' stuff on
eBay, including his full address and telephone number.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Peter Parry on
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:52:02 +0100, "Fran"
<autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:

>The only reason this one has worked - if indeed it has - is that it may be
>shown to have caused serious and material commercial harm by talking down
>the share price. It's called market abuse and only applies to share price
>impacts.
>
>I very much doubt it would have any credence or be counted as reasonable in
>English/Welsh law where someone has admitted to an action and then gets
>called out for it, for example.

The "Norwich Pharmacal Order" (named after the case which established
it - Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974])
<http://whereismydata.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/civil-law-norwich-pharmacal-order/>

An NPO allows someone pursuing a case against another to gain access
to relevant records held by an innocent third party (an ISP for
example). It is not limited to any particular type of case.

The procedure has been used in quite a few Internet related cases for
example
<http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Norwich%20Pharmacal.htm>

It isn't common in small cases as the person seeking the order has to
pay the often high costs associated with supplying the requested data.

The wording used in the House of Lords judgment in that cases sets out
the NPO's purpose :-

�If through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the
tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may
incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the
person who has been wronged by giving him full information and
disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it
matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part
or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this
causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to
reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in
righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.�