Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex @ Phorm
Alex @ Phorm here
With regard to PECR, the law is quite clear stating that any system requires valid, informed consent. We believe the approach that we will take to user notice will not only provide for such consent, but will in fact exceed the level of notice provided by anyone else. We also believe, as has been the case with the DPA and RIPA, that closer scrutiny will demonstrate that the way in which we obtain consent will substantially exceed any legal requirement.
http://blog.phorm.com/ |
Alex @ Phorm
I disagree with you completely. In light of the technical analysis published by Dr Richard Clayton (which Phorm reviewed as accurate) it is clear that in order to detect whether or not someone has either opted-in or opted-out that the Layer 7 technology must perform DPI on the traffic data. That in and of itself requires interception -and- processing of the traffic data; which means the current model fails to meet the requirements of the Directive.
Section 27 of the Directive (see my previous comment) also indicates that a change in terms and conditions by the ISP will not satisfy the consent requirements of the Directive.
Phorm have repeatedly been asked to comment on the legality of the trials of 2006/2007. It is very clear to me (and many others) that the trials of 2006/2007, which could not possibly have obtained consent as they were secret trials; were in fact in breach of the following laws and statutes in the UK (and Europe):
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003
Human Rights Act 1998
European Convention on Human Rights
Computer Misuse Act 1990
Fraud Act 2006
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
Data Protection Act 1998
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime
Why do Phorm repeatedly avoid replying to questions on these points?
Furthermore, it is all well and good saying you feel Phorm believes they have exceeded the requirements of the law, but where is your evidence and sources supporting this statement?
I believe that my 2yr Old son is more intelligent than Einstein was but without some evidence and references to support that claim, it means absolutely nothing in the real world.
I would seriously consider looking for a new job "tout de suite" if I was you Alex, because I fail to see how Phorm will not be involved in the criminal prosecution of BT (complicity) for the illegal trials of 2006/2007.
Alexander Hanff