Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonHickling
It seems that a number of government departments are stepping on each others toes here. The reply from Simon Watkin with relation to the "illegal"(?) tests seems to make more of a point about the DPA than RIPA, but by all accounts the DPA is regulated by ICO. I think I would pressure him on the unconsented interception as opposed to the DPA implications as they are a question for ICO. Even if consent could be argued to have been implied, it certainly wasn't informed consent. I think the government needs to work out who should be saying what about which bits of the issue.
|
No simon, its clear with the "As much as we were saying was, that in relation to RIPA, we considered it
**may** be possible for such services to be offered lawfully -
but it all depends on how they are offered and how they work."
you do remember this
Simon Watkin is infact that very same 'Home Office view that we are legal' dont you.
thats ONE smoking gun, and you can be sure ElReg Chris will use it once he sees it, you are reading the thread arent you chris?...
it can now be reasonably assumed that this so called QCs Opinion will be along the same lines, and not really legal at all, once that name comes out, if infact it was for real and he exists...
well done florence, now keep in mind the law side in all matters...... he's the RIPA HO personel this comes from, and what they are basing 'we are legal' on so that the attack vector....
"There are many variations on how the technology can be deployed: for example whether the end user is asked to opt-in or opt-out, whether or not the record of a user's interests can be linked to an identifiable individual, and whether or not the technology immediately discards the reason why a user is considered to be interested in a category of advertising."
did you read alexanders PDF florence? it makes it clear all the above is only valid in any form IF THEY HAVE NOT broken the RIPA to get consent so they havent broken RIPA if you see what i mean
so it seems the best action is,
is it true that without getting Explicit consent
without Breaking RIPA, non of the above you state is valid or Lawful under RIPA?
is it true that if a users datastream is Deep Packet intercepted by the ISP for any purposes (other than to route the data packet to the recipient address, the post office looking at the adress but
not the opening and
looking at the private contents if you will) before the ISP has receaved Explicit Consent, that is unlawful Interception.
and so on, always looking to get confirmation of all the points we have made taking his emails responses as the lead.
and in such a way that the questions you put back to him are clear and simple, hence why i place the Post office bit there to clarify any answers later.
---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------
Arrrr, to quick florence......., now we will have to send another one perhaps before he gets fed up answering.
he knows its posted here and make it clear again thats going to be the case BTW.
so we might get away with 2 or perhaps 3 emails before he gets fedup answering....if we are lucky, dont waste them.