Quote:
Originally Posted by unicus
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.
|
At the time of the trial I was just signed up for BT Broadband Option 3 and BT Vision. I was totally unaware at the time that PHORM ever existed. It was only on the BT forum in March of this year that I saw the reference to the dns.sysip.net cookie, which I had remembered seeing in the summer of 2007, but as I had reinstalled recently due to Vista problems the evidence was gone. A couple of weeks ago I was blocking webwise.net on my wife's laptop and prior to running CC Cleaner I was checking which cookies to keep and to my surprise I came across the cookie dns.sysip.net.
Colin
---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
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
|
Thank you very much Alexander for pointing that out and I have just sent another email to Simon stating those exact facts. I will like to see what he has to say now.
Colin