Quote:
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 …..
I then replied back stating about the info being passed to a 3rd party (PHORM) and then quoted "Regulation 7 of PECR will require the ISP to get the consent of users to the use of their traffic data for any value added services. This strongly supports the view that Phorm products will have to operate on an opt in basis to use traffic data as part of the process of returning relevant targeted marketing to internet users."
I will let you kow if I get another reply.
Colin
|
Simon clearly doesn't understand S3 of RIPA. Subsections a and b are mutually inclusive and must
BOTH be satisfied which is why there is a very prominent
and at the end of subsection a.
The interceptions do not satisfy condition b because they were absolutely nothing to do with the provision of the service. The service can be provided (and has/still is) without these interceptions (service being connection to the Internet) and the interceptions only take place for the purpose of selling data to a 3rd party for behavioural advertising.
Let me make this very clear, there was not even any testing of the anti-phishing service during these covert trials so they can't even use that as an excuse under subsection b.
Alexander Hanff