"The committee"

I love that.... lol

Regardless of platform its still an example of under investment in crucial areas.

The reason I bring it up is because I was one of several people citing lack of bandwidth issues were a result of purposefully underinvesting in the network in order to make the business look artificially profitable, in order to cream as much from any pottential sale; which in order lined the major shareholders pockets more favourably come selling time....

Pretty serious allegations to make at the time I was told - yet now we have Mr Armstrong actually citing previous under investment as a contributory factor to this latest disaster.

It appears that capacity was not the only part of the network suffering from under investment in order to line several of the management up with larger rewards for the sale of the company.

In reply to:

---

I wonder if Mr Webb will be making an appearance on the board soon.

---

I know for a fact (and I'm sure you can appreciate) that Phil has some other priorities right now, but I've no doubt he will be around once things have settled down.

In reply to:

---

From what I've been reading, Plusnet haven't given out any details. The details were obtained illegally. Now while one can't condone breaches in security, I've amazed that no one has even bothered to have a go at the perps of this crime. A bit like blaming the bank for an armed robbery.

---

It may be the robber who stole from the bank, but it was the bank that left the door open. In this case, Plusnet left the door open in some way, shape fashion or form. They choose the software, they choose how much they monitor and audit access to it and they're also presumably responsible that even people who've long since left plusnet still have details stored (when surey they should have been removed).

It's plusnet's responsibility at the end of the day, and the buck stops with them.

I have just managed to log into my old plusnet account and see that my email address and payment details are still there. I left Plusnet 21/09/05 or thereabouts.

http://www.skyuser.co.uk/images/plusnet.gif

That is a blatant disregard for DPA principles

Did you downgrade to a free dial-up account? If so then the fact that your details are retained by PlusNet is what I would expect.

I left Plusnet because of the Terms and Conditions that they imposed and because of the Wadev 4 on principle. Therefore I should have no access.

1) Even so, after 90 days of inactivity, they should have closed it down.

2) As a PAYG account, why would they need my payment details?

3) That is complete tosh, clearly a breech of the DATA Protection ACT, which I will address tomorrow.

At the time of the terms and conditions change, you were not allowed a PAYG account as you did not agree to their Terms and Conditions.

totally agree. if your payment details are still on the system, even if your are now pay as you go - its a blatent breach of the DPA as these details are not required for your PAYG service.

I do not think it will be a breach of the DPA as moving to PAYG means that people are still customers in PNs eyes and hence they have the option for adding additional paid for services and for this they would need payment details.

In the case where a user closes their PAYG account then I think that would be different as you are now stating that you no longer want to be a customer.

But I guess it would take someone from the ICO to clarify exactly what circumstances allow them to hold onto pesronal details.