[unicus]

Originally Posted by wecpc

After emailing Simon Watkins at the Home Office as advised by 'Florence', I had a reply but he stated that BT had not admitted to a trial in 2007, when I was intercepted. So I reported back that he should look at The Register and I gave him the required link.
He also stated that my interception was lawful by virtue of section 3(3) of RIPA 2000 which states:

3) Conduct consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if—

(a) it is conduct by or on behalf of a person who provides … a telecommunications service; and

(b) it takes place for purposes connected with the provision or operation of that service …..

So at the time of the secret trial what service were you signed up to with BT that required the use of the Phorm/Webwise equipment to intercept your communication?

Just as an anology with regard to RIPA. Under the normal course of Royal Mail's communication distribution they can't just open a letter for their own personal gain (though this is what Phorm et al. are proposing) and would not be legal as it is not necessary for the service with which they are contracted.

Now lets say the Royal Mail are sorting a letter with an address window but they cannot see any address but it was fairly obvious the letter was folded wrong and by opening the letter they would be able to see the address and carry out their obligation to deliver the letter. This would be legal because the otherwise illegal act of opening the letter was necessary to carry out their normal business as contracted.

Why do they keep trying to tell us this interception is legal when quite clearly the Phorm equipment is not necessary for the ISP to carry out it's contracted duty to relay communications therefore under RIPA it must be unlawful interception. After all their "provision or operation of that service" has managed fine without Phorm's equipment.