[AlexanderHanff]

Simon, I have another question for you. I can't remember whether it was here or in the meeting thread, but you have stated that if any client were seeking your services for matters which were clearly illegal; 80/20 Thinking would immediately severe the relationship.

May I ask then, why you have not severed your relationship with Phorm? Given that there is existing case law.

Phorm claim that if a website publishes content on the Internet then Phorm assume consent to access and use that content for commercial purposes. The argument goes against case law such as Ebay vs Bidder's Edge not to mention cases involving Google Images and Archive.org.

Or do you justify your decision to continue working with Phorm purely on the fact that no court has issued judgement? If that is the case, I would like to point out that the only reason why courts have not issued judgement is because in every single case I have found, the defendant has eventually settled with the plaintiff in order to avoid a judgement being passed.

Let us not forget UK case law on this issue. I ask you to cast your mind back to the Cliff Stanford RIPA case, where Stanford pleaded guilty to a breach of RIPA and was then denied the right to appeal. A clear judgement on interception under British case law.

Do you not have any ethical dilemmas with this?

Alexander Hanff