Like Florence, I have now heard from Simon Watkin, a well-measured, professional reply, all be it one with which I have deep concerns. However, as it does not tell us much more than his reply to Florence, as I have some supplementary questions and as he hasn't given express permission for me to publish it here, I'll summarise the correspondence after I've heard from him again providing of course he gives his permission.
The same cannot be said for the reply I received from the Home Office. Here therefore is the entire correspondence so far. Please draw your own conclusions.
Quote:
From: [Portly_Giraffe]
Sent: 14 April 2008 7:38 PM
To: COMMSDATA
Subject: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: BT's Phorm trial
Between 23 September and 6 October 2006 and again in June
2007, BT trialled Phorm, a technology for intercepting,
reading and analysing private Internet communications. At
no time was consent sought from or granted by either the
tens of thousands of users whose traffic was intercepted
or by the owners of the websites which they accessed.
Please tell me whether you intend to instigate criminal
proceedings against BT and named individuals such as Emma
Sanderson for breaching the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.
|
Quote:
on 15/4/08 14:22, Knight Andrew at Andrew.Knight@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk wrote:
Thank you for you email related to Targeted Online Adverts
and possible breaches of the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). RIPA is primarily about how state
bodies; such as the police, local councils the security
and intelligence agencies, conduct some of their
investigatory functions.
RIPA exists to provide a statutory basis and operating
framework for the Police and other law enforcement bodies
to interfere with an individual’s right to privacy, for
instance during the course of an criminal investigation.
An independent body exists to deal with complaints about
breaches of RIPA in relation to the police or other State
investigatory bodies.
The Home Office published a view http://cryptome.org/ho-
phorm.htm based upon its understanding of targeted online
advertising, specifically related to Phorm. It is
important to add this is not a legal opinion, which only a
court can give. As mentioned in the view, there is the
possibility that a communications company can lawfully
intercept communications. That is not to say whether or
not that has happened in this case, it is for the
communications company to ensure that they are compliant
with the law.
Andrew Knight
|
Quote:
Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 16:59
From: [Portly_Giraffe]
To: Knight Andrew <Andrew.Knight@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Conversation: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act: BT's Phorm trial
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your response. However you do not appear to have read my questions, let
alone answered them. In case they are too hard for you, I will rephrase them.
(1) My understanding is that the RIPA applies to anyone, not just state agencies.
Please tell me whether I am right or wrong.
(2) By their own admission, BT have intercepted the private communications of tens
of thousands of users. Please tell me whether or not you think a criminal offence
has been committed under the RIPA.
(3) if you think a criminal offence has been committed under the RIPA, please tell
me why no action has yet been taken.
Thanks,
[Portly].
|
By the way, this is as livid as I get.