The Wardman Wire

The site owner of one of the oldest bit torrent communities has been raided by police and his computer equipment handed over to the Hollywood-run Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT).

Founded way back in 2003 UK based FileSoup has built a solid reputation, hosting discussions on the technology. Since 2005 FileSoup hasn’t operated a tracker but links to metadata which links to material hosted elsewhere. It has never hosted any copyrighted content.

Site owner ‘TheGeeker’ sent out the following this morning:

Monday 27th July @ 9:05am

Police raid on my home, Warrant to enter and search premises issued on 16/7/09 @12:25

For issue of warrant under:
Section 109 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Identify, so far as possible, the articles or persons to be sought and search for:
Evidence in relation to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films however held, whether electronically or otherwise. Also any evidence in relation to payments received relating to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films held whether electronically or otherwise.

Specify person or persons: AUTHORITY is hereby given for any constable (accompanied by):
Neil Gardner, an officer of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (F.A.C.T.)

I was arrested, and taken to the local police station, on the way I asked and was told that it would take about a couple of hours, when I arrived, the booking-in charge was entered as:
Suspicion of downloading copyrighted movies

I asked them while still at home if I could contact a member of my family so that someone could come and make sure my dog was catered for, they said that I couldn’t. On the way to the police station I asked if they could contact someone to take care of the dog or if I could make a phone call, they again said I could not.

Before being put in a cell, I was given a Notice Of Entitlements sheet. On this sheet it clearly stated under HOW YOU SHOULD BE CARED FOR. Keeping in touch:
As well as talking to a solicitor and having a person told about your arrest you will usually be allowed to make one phone call. Ask the police if you would like to make a phone call. You can also ask for a pen and paper. You may be able to have visitors but the custody officer can refuse to allow that.

I asked again as I was put in the cell, if I could contact someone or make a phone call, I was told no I couldn’t do that, I asked why and was told that the Inspector had put a block on any and all communication from me to anyone.

I was checked on approximately every 30 minutes, each time I asked if they could please contact someone to inform them that I had been arrested and that I wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for a solicitor, every time I was told that they would check into it, see what they could do, ask a superior etc etc, but I wasn’t allowed to do either for the whole duration of me being in the cell, which was around 7.5 hours.

After a few hours, I was visited by two Independent Custody Visitors, who asked if I was being treated well and if there was anything I wanted or needed, I told them that I had asked several times already, that I wanted someone contacted to let them know that I’d been arrested and that I wanted to make a phone call, but both had been refused, they appeared surprised and said they would look into it for me, but that was obviously a worthless statement from them, because in the hours that follwed, I still wasn’t allowed to do either.

I did get something which resembled an all day breakfast meal, but the taste was so awful, I only had a couple of spoons of it, I had several cups of water and a cup of coffee, I also asked for and got a blanket when I got a bit cold, police cells aren’t the warmest of places I now know!

I’m guessing that around about 4:45pm a policeman who I’d not seen before, came into the cell with some paperwork, it was a 12 page list of items they had seized from my house, he asked me to sign a document to confirm that the items listed were mine, after looking at the first few pages, I told him that there were no specific identifiable details for any of the items they had seized and listed, no manufacturers, no model numbers, no serial numbers, for anything and that because this important information had not been detailed, I was not going to sign anything stating that I owned any of it, not without first visually confirming that all the listed items were actually my propety, here’s the list of items they say they seized:

01. Nokia mobile phone
02. Large brown package containing several large padded envelopes
03. Western digital hard drive
03. Realistic telephone answering machine
04. 18 mini discs
05. Sharp video camera in grey carry case
06. 8 blank cd’s
07. Tandy laptop & bag
08. Black media device
09. Grey mitac laptop computer
10. 10 mini discs
11. eMechanics computer hard drive
12. Box containing venus hard drives
13. 10 blank jvc cd’s
14. Memory stick from rear of eMachines computer tower
15. Box containing 10 traxdata cd’s
16. Box containing 10 samsung cd’s
17. Large computer tower
18. 2 cd’s 1 floppy disc and misc papers containing invoices
19. Advent computer tower and external drives
20. Wharfdale rewritable dvd player
21. 5 x hard drives
22. Grey phillips receiver
23. 3 x memory sticks
24. Misc cd’s and mini discs
25. Hard drives
26. 1 x hard drive
27. Various cd’s & dvd’s
28. Computer base unit
29. Computer drive & lead
30. Asda bag containing computer drive & discs
31. Sat nav in black case
32. Paperwork containg details of addresses in Scotland
33. Documents seized from desk

What do they take me for, a complete idiot! …no one in their right mind would have signed to say any of these items were their property, especially if they’d not been there when it was seized!
Anyway, he got extremely pissed off, insisted I signed it, I refused and he said something to the effect of “fine, then don’t sign it” and stormed off out of the cell.

At 5pm a solicitor arrived and I was put in an interview room to speak with him and his assistant, I said that with my limited knowledge, as far as I was aware, downloading of something which had copyright, was a civil offence and not a criminal one and I asked him why the police were involved in this case, he told me that under Section 109 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988, the downloading of any copyrighted item, without the owners consent, was a crimnal offence and not a civil one …first I knew of it!

I was then interviewed by two police officers and it was recorded on tape, they asked loads of questions about all sorts of things to do with Filesoup, I had to correct and explain things to them several times, in very simple terms, a lot of the misconceptions or misunderstandings they had about the way BitTorrent works, how servers and hosts operate, how the internet works, what a domain name was, what a URL was, to name but a few things! The tape machine beeped and kept stopping part way through the interview, it appeared that they knew it was a “bit faulty” at times, but fiddled with it and carried on regardless, eventually, the interview was finished.

My solicitor and I asked them if they would very kindly drive me back home again, he did agree, but he first had to complete some paperwork, he said he’d be as quick as he could and put me back in the cell again to wait for him. Quite some time later, he returned and took me back to the booking desk.

I was given a multi-paged document entitled:
Notice of Excercise of Additional Powers of Seizure under Sections 50 or 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which listed the same items as above. It gave this information for anyone wishing to make an application for the return of seized property in this case or an application to attend examination of seized property, should apply to:
Neil Gardner
Senior Invesigator
Federation Against Copyright Theft
Europa House
Church Street
Old Isleworth
Midlesex
TW7 6DA

On returning my personal effects, the officer noticed the Filesoup credit card which they had overlooked when I was being booked in, he confiscated the card and gave me a receipt for it.
I was released on police bail with the alleged offence(s) stated as being:
Distribute Article Infringing Copyright

I must surrender to the local police station on 02/10/2009 at 5:00 pm

I asked the officers why everyone had continually refused all day to contact someone to inform them of my arrest and why I’d been refused to make a phone call, they told me that the Inspector had lifted the “block” at around 2:30pm and that they didn’t know why the officers on duty at the station hadn’t been informed of this fact.

Time of release from police custody was 19:42

I got back home just before 8pm to find my belongings had been turned upside down, the dining room was a like a whirlwind had gone through, I’m not the tidiest of people as it is, but at least I knew where everything was, but after they had been there going through everything, they’d turfed out all the drawers of the desk, chucked back what was of no interest to them, left a pile of paperwork scattered across my desk and table with wires everywhere, talk about a nightmare!. My dog was extremely traumatised, he’d been barking almost non-stop all day long the neighbour told my Dad when he went over at about 6:30pm to feed the dog as I hadn’t got back yet. My dog rarely barks at anything, now he barks at the least little thing, I am SO annoyed that they have done this to him!

Well that’s it, lock, stock and barrel… how can anyone have any faith in our current justice system …what the hell happened to the old belief “innocent until proven guilty”? Gits!

Link to thread if you wish to comment or read the replies: http://filesoup.com/forum/news_updates-f9-arrested_now_on_bail_guilty_until_i_prove_im_innocent-t29230.html

Please tell everyone you know about this fiasco, the more people who know about it and talk about it, the better chance I will have of getting the media attention this kind of injustice deserves.

Thank you all for your continued support.

Kind regards
Geeker
(Steve)

This is taken from a members only site that monitors FACT.

FACT has become very adept at convincing people that it is some sort of official law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority for copyright related offences even though it is financed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Don’t be fooled, it is not. FACT is a normal private company with no special powers or rights. It is because of this lack of statutory power that it has bought its way into the Trading Standards and Police authorities so that it has the next best thing to the actual power – control over those who do have it.

In a tried and tested strategy used by the MPA the world over, FACT’s employment policy is very simple. They hire former police and trading standards officers, frequently from the areas of the UK where the closeness between the former officer and his/her colleagues that are still in the job can be exploited.

This policy shows through with virtually all of the company’s staff made up of former police and trading standards officers. Even the solicitors, Mike Northern Legal, that FACT uses for its private prosecutions are owned by the former Principal Trading Standards officer for Kent, Mike Northern.

FACT’s appointment policy is crucial to making sure that influence and control is retained when dealing with police forces, trading standards or other public bodies who have real authority to exercise power over citizens. Through their employment policy FACT is able to insinuate itself even further into the enforcement and legal process by employing former employees of the main public authorities that they liaise with.

The official position of FACT is that they simply “assist” the Police or Trading Standards. In reality FACT run entire investigations from start to finish. The usual way an operation will run is that FACT will focus on an individual who has come to their attention either via a “tip off” or via their own investigation. They then identify a potential offence using their own surveillance and investigatory techniques, take the evidence they have gathered to a statutory body such as the Police or Trading Standards and ask the public body to start an investigation.

The Police (quite rightly) do not view copyright offences as a priority and as a result, due to the unimportance of the offence or due to budgetary restrictions, are unable to devote the manpower or time to an investigation that FACT would like them to. This response is usually expected by FACT and they readily offer to conduct the investigation using their own staff, pay for third parties to be contracted in and investigate computers forensically themselves. This totally relieves the Police of any burden (plus any reason for declining to investigate) and they usually agree to designate a token officer to the investigation.

Once this understanding is in place FACT are effectively in control of the Police investigation and can use their powers accordingly. FACT investigators give the Police the grounds for the warrant, accompany the police on the execution of the search and identify what property is to be seized. Once the property is seized it is usually all handed over to FACT within a few days if not immediately. Once in possession of the property FACT have no need for the Police and usually the designated Officer in Charge is not bothered unless some form of statutory power needs exercising.

The police are rarely kept informed of the day to day running of the investigation by FACT and treat passing of information to the police as a “need to know basis”. This control by FACT allows them to present only information to the Police that supports FACT’s preconception that a suspect is guilty (until proved innocent). Evidence that a suspect is innocent is unlikely to be given the same amount of attention as evidence to the contrary.

Even though FACT are doing the work, officially, the investigation is a police one and that means that the criteria are in place to allow for the application of a financial restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Bedfordshire Trading Standards unit, that FACT funds, has usually been involved with investigation from the start and readily applies for a restraint order on FACT’s request. BTSFIU staff sometime even personally serve the order on the individual. Within a short time a UK citizen can have his home searched, be arrested, interviewed and financially restrained all at the behest of FACT, a private company controlled by US interests.

It is worth noting that FACT often gives unlimited indemnities to those statutory bodies it controls or works closely with so there is no incentive on the public body to be careful or dissent to FACT’s requests.

FACT’s directors commercial interests are also at risk from new and competing business models from the internet. For example NBC Universal, News Corporation and Walt Disney are all leading members of the MPA, all (through subsidiaries) directors of FACT and all involved in a joint venture website called Hulu. Not only is Hulu a huge success in the US but it is also poised to enter the UK market. Is it fair and proper that the giant corporations that run FACT are allowed to close websites such as TV Links that compete with their own commercial offerings?

Considering the analysis of current UK law that shows the TV Links website was not breaking the law, yet was still closed down by FACT’s actions it seems extraordinary that there has not been calls for investigations by the Office of Fair Trading for anti-competitive actions by FACT’s directors.

Would the power and influence of FACT be used to stop a competing website that has surpassed the popularity of FACT’s directors websites? It would be simple enough to label it as a copyright infringing website and then crush it with the tried and tested strategy it has developed. The answer to that question has already been clearly answered.

FACT frequently refers to themselves as a “trade body representing the interests of the movie industry”. If this is true then they represent the injured party in any copyright infringement case relating to the movie industry and therefore should play no role whatsoever in an investigation if that investigation is to be accepted as independent fair and balanced. Not only is it inappropriate for the “victim” to be funding the investigation but it is absurd that the victim should be given custody and control of the suspect’s property to investigate.

The following questions are appropriate to consider:

Would it be acceptable for Rape Crisis, an organisation that represents victims of rape, to fund and control an investigation into a man suspected of raping two of their members? Should they be allowed the suspects clothing and property to forensically investigate?

Would it be acceptable for a shareholder who had lost their life savings due to the Northern Rock collapse to be allowed custody of the Northern Rock’s computers and files so they could investigate who was to blame for the downfall of the bank?

Would it be acceptable for the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes to be allowed custody of the clothing, guns and statements of the police officers that shot him so they could forensically investigate themselves?

The answer is the same for whichever type of victim there may be. It is simply not possible for a fair and independent investigation to be carried out by the representative of the injured party never mind an injured party that will commercially benefit from that investigation.

Most importantly, however, is that FACT, private limited company, has access to untold amounts of private and confidential data on United Kingdom citizens. It has no oversight, no regulation and no accountability except to its own commercial directors.

This lack of transparency or oversight raises very important questions regarding data protection and privacy. FACT is frequently given access to private and confidential information about UK citizens by the public bodies that it works with. Public bodies such as Trading Standards and Police often hand over in depth details without any guarantee as to how the information will be used by FACT.

In accordance with its Memorandum of Association FACT maintains a database containing all information it has acquired from public bodies and that the contents of this database are shared with the MPAA and its commercial directors inside and outside of United Kingdom jurisdiction.

The outsourcing of the investigative role to FACT (and then further out-sourcing of work by FACT to other third parties) means that checks and balances that are in place to oversee fair and proportionate use of power by public bodies are no longer possible because a private body has effectively taken their place. The result is that FACT, a private limited company controlled by an overseas company, is able to use the power of the public authorities to further the aims of its commercial directors and the organisations they represent without any regulation, oversight or accountability.