AMP v Persons Unknown
A young woman (AMP) had her mobile phone stolen. The phone contained sexually explicit images of the woman which subsequently appeared on a free online media hosting service, tagged with her name and Facebook profile. She found out about this via messages from strangers on Facebook and contacted the hosting service which removed the images. She was also threatened via Facebook by a 'Nils Henrik-Derimot' that if she did not add him as a Facebook 'friend' he would expose her identity and spread the images widely online. She deleted these threats and blocked the sender.
The images were subsequently uploaded to a Swedish BitTorrent site tagged with AMP's name and consequently came top of the search results when that name was plugged into any of the major search engines. Her solicitors had some success in getting these links removed from the searches through DMCA takedown notices in the US.
AMP is now pursuing this case in a effort to "prevent the spread and indexing of the image files by preventing their storage and transmission" within the UK.
Andrew Murray, professor of law at the LSE, was consulted as an expert witness and he explained the nature of BitTorrent technology. The Court's understanding of his testimony is laid out in paragraphs 9 to 18. The Court accepts that torrent seeders can be identified via their IP addresses and therefore prevented (or ordered to cease) from transmission, storage and indexing of the images in question. The Court also accepts (paragraph 17) that
it is also possible to prevent internet search engines from indexing particular sites or files which contain specific words; in this case the descriptor file containing the Claimant’s name could be filtered out on that basis. He says that this would then prevent wide-scale access to the “.torrent” file and again because of a lack of seeders the distribution by the BitTorrent protocol would cease to occur.Whereas this is a genuinely valiant effort at providing the Court with advice on how to frame an order to protect someone subject to blackmail and harassment, the practical problem is that it is easy to produce an alternatively labelled descriptor file which could evade the filters. It seems fairly clear that Prof Murray pointed this out to the judge as Mr Justice Ramsey, in his concluding order, attempts to address the issue by prohibiting the creation of derivative files.
The case was brought against "persons unknown" because until the torrent seeders could be identified, via their IP addresses through their ISPs, they could not be party to the proceedings; but delays involved tracking down these people could lead to an increased spread of the images causing further damage to AMP. However it was straightforward to define a class of defendant, "namely any person in possession or control of any part or parts of the relevant files containing the relevant digital photographic images".
The key issue in terms of the practicalities of any injunction, not explicitly referred to by the court but nicely articulated by Andrew Murray, was that AMP was an ordinary person, not a modern celebrity or person of interest to the tabloid media. So people sharing or torrenting the sexually explicit images are likely to know or be acquainted with AMP personally. Therefore there is a fair chance they will be resident in the UK and hence subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Any injunction with sufficiently severe sanctions related to its breach would have a respectable chance of succeeding in deterring people who know AMP from spreading the images around. It is a little depressing to note that that partial protection declines exponentially if ever AMP did attain some degree of celebrity, as long as the images remain in the possession of actors with nefarious intent or purposes.
In terms of the legalities, AMP claimed the protection of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the Human Rights Act (article 8 privacy) 1998 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Mr Justice Ramsey focused exclusively on the latter two in his judgement. He gives a very careful analysis (paragraphs 23 to 38) of the human rights issues and why AMP's right to privacy clearly, in this case, trumps the (Article 10 free speech) right of persons unknown to store, index and distribute AMP's photos. Likewise he concludes AMP has a case for protection from harassment:
"44. ... I consider that, on the current evidence, there has been conduct on at least two occasions; the conduct was targeted at the Claimant; it was calculated, in an objective sense, to cause alarm or distress; objectively judged it would be oppressive and unacceptable in the context in which it occurred and, in my judgment would cross the line and be conduct which amounts to harassment, alarm or distress.The judge also re-affirms an earlier order under civil procedure rule (CPR) 39.2(4) that AMP's anonymity be maintained (paragraph 46) before concluding with a strong interim injunction.
45. There is therefore a good arguable case that the conduct of disseminating the digital photographic images amounts to harassment of the Claimant under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and that this is a case where it is appropriate to grant an injunction."
"ConclusionAMP's legal team will now need to identify and contact UK residents whose computers are involved in the further distribution of her images. Anyone involved in such activity, whatever their motives might be, would be well advised to stop. This was a civil action but breach of the injunction attracts criminal sanctions. See sections 3(6) and 3(9) of the Protection from Harassment Act.
47. ... I consider that this is an appropriate case for the court to grant relief both in relation to a breach of the Claimant’s right to privacy and also a breach of the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
49. This is a case where the Claimant is entitled to an interim injunction to prevent the distribution of the digital photographic images, either by conventional downloading from a site or by downloading by the use of the BitTorrent Protocol.
50. I therefore grant an interim injunction in the following terms against persons unknown being those people in possession or control of any part or parts of the files listed in Schedule C to the order who are served with this order:
(1) shall immediately cease seeding any BitTorrent containing any part or parts of the files listed in Schedule C of this Order.
(2) must not upload or transmit to any other person any part or parts of the files listed in Schedule C of this Order.
(3) must not create any derivatives of any of the files listed in Schedule C of this Order.
(4) must not disclose the name of Claimant (or any other information which might lead to her identification) or the names of any of the files listed in Schedule C of this Order."
For the moment AMP has had a clear win in the High Court. However, it follows years of expensive legal proceedings in the UK and US, the embarrassment and stress of having intimate photographs on public display and no indication that the original phone thief and/or blackmailer(/s) or possibly collective of actors of disreputable intent have been found. Though the police were notified of the phone being stolen there is no indication in the decision whether there was a subsequent criminal investigation either of the theft or of the blackmail. I assume, since it was a civil case, there was no criminal harassment investigation or proceedings and the deletion by AMP of the Facebook blackmail threats may have made such an investigation difficult.
In a lot of ways this was an easy case for the judge to decide. The rights of the ordinary woman, with no celebrity status, to privacy and protection from harassment, trump those of unknown persons spreading her private photos around the internet. The injunction may help to cut the distribution of the images by people resident in the UK, as AMP and her legal team hope, but it can't fully repair the damage of what's happened. It will be interesting to see if the 'not a celebrity' feature has a wider application in the future.