Quote:
Originally Posted by Deko
Anyone care to comment on this
from here : http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=14453044
ferdinandling - 18 Apr'08 - 21:00 - 1441 of 1441
Don't know who the RIPA expert was. His name was Casper something. The chairman (previous chairman of FIPR) knew him by name and explained to the audience that eh was probably the world's leading light with regard to RIPA. He agreed that the system was legal under that law.
Whilst we are on that subject, Dr Clayton admitted that the ICO had made an error about another law PECR requring opt-in. I'm not a techie so don't quite understand but along the lines of...Regulation 7 of PECR is referring only to traffic data. The Phorm system does not use traffic data, therefore the ICO's recommendation about OPt-in is not valid.
FInally, the last law that Phorm has been accused of breaking is the Data Protection Act. Dr Clayton's own review of the Phorm system (in MArch) agreed that it did not fall foul of any data protection rules.
Summary - legal underall three relevant laws.
Question - do you really think that BT's legal department would have spent 6 months looking into this and made an error when they decided to give the green light. Same with the Home OFfice, the ICO, the QC's thta gave legal opinion etc etc. |
trying to remember what happened at the meeting.
I am fairly certain that this occurred during the question and answer session at the end.
The chairman, Richard Clayton and Casper the previous executive of FIPR where discussing the difference in meaning of the word traffic in PECR and RIPA. It was too arcane for me apart from the fact the two statutes have very different interpretations of the word.
I think their discussion centred around the possible legality of the new BT/Phorm/Webwise front page.
What I am certain of is that at no point did he disagree with Richard Clayton's assessment of the legality of the BT trial