[AlexanderHanff]

To be honest it doesn't really matter, any terms which effect your statutory rights are unlawful (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) and since this is a clear violation of RIPA and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 they would be void.

I am not a lawyer either, but the bods at FIPR are lawyers and furthermore government policy advisers. I share the same interpretation (the logical one) of the law as they do on this issue and I am reasonably confident that they know what they are talking about.

Furthermore if BT thought their terms and conditions covered them already then why did the Home Office advice mention new terms and conditions and why have BT stated they intend to try to circumvent this law by changing their current terms?

Let us also not forget that the ISP need the consent of the web site/content owners as well as the consent of their customers. The Home Office statement claimed that implied consent (having a publicly accessible web site) -might- give the ISP an escape route but also stated it was not a definitive legal article and that it would be up to the courts to decide. FIPR (and myself) believe that implied consent is -not- valid and that consent must be given explicitly (informed consent) under RIPA. Given that it also falls under Human Rights law it is fair to assume that explicit consent is required.

However, even if (and it is a big if) a Judge allows the implied consent angle, there are -many- very popular websites which have explicit terms already in place which deny consent for such activity, so they cannot be seen to be giving implied consent. Furthermore, many webpages are -not- publicly accessible (not linked to from anywhere in the public domain) but do not use HTTPS either. As they are not published in the public domain they are not relevant under the implied consent argument either.

Alexander Hanff