Popper,
Sorry I wasn't very clear. here's the last bit of Simon Watkin's reply
Quote:
> > I hope that you will review this and take a look at the illegal trials
> > undertaken by BT and Phorm in 2006/2007 where thousands of people where
> > intercepted without their consent.
My understanding is that BT made a public statement that "a small scale
technical test of a prototype advertising platform took place for two weeks
during September - October 2006 [and that] no personally identifiable
information was processed, stored or disclosed during this test".
Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE
|
All the responses from government departments with regard to the previous tests concentrate on the "no personally identifiable information" part of the BT statement.
From what has been said by the same government departments this would be a matter for investigation under the data protection act - regulated and enforced by ICO.
When ICO were explicitly asked about contravention of RIPA they bounced to the Home Office. What I was trying to say is that the issue that the Home Office should be made to answer is with respect to the interception in those initial trials, whether or not any identifiable information was involved.
The interception and the processing of data are 2 separate issues and yet nobody from HMG has dealt with any questions regarding the interception.
This makes me (in my tin foil hat) a little suspicious, and think that a very direct question along the lines of "Allowing for the fact that no personally identifiable information was stored processed etc., is it possible that the initial interception of that data by BT in 2006/7 was illegal under the terms of RIPA given that no user consent (explicit or implicit) was ever requested? - if so should the police not be investigating?" is required to get a straight answer. Although even then it may be possible for civil servant speak to spin such a straight answer. If it *may* have been legal, then by definition it *may* also have been illegal and there may be grounds for investigation, but who does the investigation?
Communications with HMG are further clouded by the fact that we are trying both to set straight the record on the legality of the initial trials and also to confirm the legality of the upcoming services to be launched by Talk Talk and BT (and possibly VM). It seems that in order to avoid a direct straight answer to any points they are mixing all the points up, so they can refer to the processing of data.
Just a thought.