[popper]

(sorry about that, some oddball formatting, sorted now)

pete makes the same points i made a while back now, there were probably many professional people that came under the unlawful interception during the times outlined....

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...il/084549.html
"Home Office Disclosure: Phorm
Pete John ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:47:44 +0100
Previous message: Beacon: Blockbuster gets legal poke for Facebook Tupperware campaign
Next message: Port numbers and traffic data
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked the Home Office, under the Freedom of Information Act, to explain
whether they were made aware that BT were testing Phorm systems in 2006/7,
whether the trial was authorised by the Home Office, when they first started
advising BT/Phorm/ISPs, and what instruction they are giving Police
Detectives.

>From the statement received the Home Office I draw these conclusions.
The Home Office were unaware that systems supplied by Phorm were being used to monitor Internet traffic in 2006/7.

Consequently, the trail was likely to have indiscriminately intercepted
traffic relating to Military Staff, Police Officers, Judges, Solicitors,
MPs, Doctors, Bankers, Civil Servants, Security Services and ordinary
citizens without any Home Office advice or oversight.

There was no authorisation given by the Home Office to conduct trials of
Phorm in 2006/7.

The first contact with the Home Office was 4 February 2008... meaning that
Phorm and BT conducted trials in 2006/7 without ever consulting the Home
Office, and acted without that advice in hand (including advice concerning
consent to intercept, and assumed consent).

And no Police Detectives have sought advice from the Home Office concerning
RIPA. (I plan to pursue that question; what advise would Police Officers be
given?).

The response received from Simon Watkin is shared with you below.
regards
Pete.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr John,
You write:
“…. it is clear your office were advising Phorm in January 2008. Well before
the public announcement of agreements between Phorm and Internet Service
Providers”

The Home Office was approached by a number of parties, both technology
providers and ISPs, seeking a view about issues relating to the provision of
targeted online advertising services, particularly their relation to Part 1
of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The single response to
those requests was made in the informal guidance note, dated January 2008,
which was not made available to any of those parties until 4 February 2008.

Please now inform me

- Whether the Home Office were made aware of the secret trials conducted by
Phorm in 2006/7

It wasn’t.

- Whether the Home Office authorised secret trials conducted by Phorm in
2006/7

The Home Office was not aware of the trials/tests.

- When you first started advising BT and Phorm (and other ISPs)

Asked for a view we gave that view to all parties who asked for it on or
after 4 February 2008.

- What advice Police Detective Inspectors are being given by the Home Office
concerning prosecutions of BT (and other ISPs)

No such advice has been sought.

I have asked my press office to communicate this response to Chris Williams
at The Register.
Simon Watkin
HOME OFFICE

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

that same
BRIAN BERGSTEIN
Associated Press
April 18, 2008 at 2:52 PM EDT

just got put up on another site, this time in the us and theres a comments section if you dont want to write a story to counter this wide spread news copy, you might want to at least comment on its contents here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...echnology/home