http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo...acetoface.html
charles, you can thank florence on CF for this smoking gun if you like
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post3415.html
"Simon Watkin ...
'That note [1] (which you've read) clearly states it should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give. Equally it wasn't, and didn't purport to be, based upon a detailed technical examination of any particular technology.
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.
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.'
...
...
'It's not a ruling. It's not advice. It's not a legal opinion. It's a view
and - repeating myself - all it says is it **may** be possible for such
services to be offered lawfully.'
...
'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
"
it was collected by the DPI kit though, and it was prosessed in the ram of the device, so it could be then passed along, it was obviously processing the 2006 datastreams as can be seen in those web messageboards that got all that Phorm junk deposited in plain view at the end of their posts.....
no need to guess, a clear case of DPI collecting and processing and a telltale visable trail back to these effected BT users.... case closed.
someone tell bobby and the guys down the yard quick.